^  MAR  11  1830 


Sect  K  r.^J^i^V-" 


V 


Oo 


r£gY 


z. 


STUDY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


FOR  POPULAR  READING. 


BEING  AN   INQUIRY   INTO   THE  AGE  OF  THE  SO-CALLED   BOOKS  OF 

MOSES,  WITH    AN    INTRODUCTORY   EXAMINATION   OF   RECENT 

DUTCH  THEORIES,    AS    REPRESENTED   BY   DR.    KUENEN'S 

"RELIGION   OF  ISRAEL." 


BY 

RUFUS    p.'  STEBBINS,  D.D. 

Formerly   President,   Lecturer  on  Hebrew  Literature,   and  Professor  of 
Theology  in  the  Meadvillt  Theological  School. 


BOSTON: 

GEO.  11.  ELLIS,  141  FRANKLIN  STREET. 
188-?. 


Copyright, 

i8Zi, 

By  Geo.  H.  Ellis. 


PREFACE. 


This  work  is  substantially  a  reprint  of  articles 
published  in  the  Unitarian  Review,  1879  ^^^ 
1880.  I  have  not  found  it  necessary  to  essen- 
tially modify  any  of  the  arguments  there  pre- 
sented in  the  present  publication.  Several  works 
and  many  articles,  at  home  and  abroad,  have  since 
been  published;  but  they  do  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  affect  the  force  of  the  argument  presented 
in  the  following  "  Study." 

It  seemed  better  to  give  the  criticism  on  the 
Dutch  school  as  represented  b)  Dr.  Kuenen  as 
originally  written  than  to  attempt  by  partial  re- 
writing and  voluminous  notes  to  introduce  the 
substance  of  it  into  the  body  of  the  work.  In 
this  manner,  the  argument  of  the  "Study"  is  not 
interrupted  by  noticing  the  objections  and  an- 
swering the  arguments  and  criticising  the  evi- 
dence which  are  offered  by  many  writers  as  well 
as  by  Dr.  Kuenen.  Professor  W.  Robertson 
Smith's  lectures  on  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
Jewish  Church  were  not  published  till  this  work 
was  more  than  half   through  the  press.     I  have 


2  PREFACE. 

examined  it  with  care,  and  find  very  little  which 
would  have  required  any  notice,  had  I  received 
it  in  season.  Though  he  takes  substantially  the 
same  ground  on  many  points  as  the  Dutch  school, 
he  denies  that  Deuteronomy  is  a  forgery  of  the 
priests  of  the  time  of  Josiah,  and  that  the  Books 
of  the  Chronicles  are  historical  forgeries  to  sus- 
tain the  new  claims  of  the  priesthood.  The  three 
principal  reasons  which  he  gives  for  the  late  ori- 
gin of  the  Pentateuch,  especially  the  ritual  por- 
tion of  it,  are :  first,  the  neglect  of  observing  the 
law  and  direct  violations  of  it  down  to  the  divi- 
sion of  the  kingdom  or  later;  second,  a  distinct 
priestly  family  or  caste  did  not  exist  till  the  time 
of  Ezra  ;  and,  third,  the  early  prophets,  Amos, 
Hosea,  Isaiah,  and  Micah,  refer  to  no  written  law, 
and  denounce  ritual  observances.  I  have  exam- 
ined with  care  whether  the  evidence  adduced  to 
sustain  these  reasons  is  sufficient  to  justify  the 
author's  opinion,  and  do  not  find  it  necessary  to 
add  but  few  special  notes  to  the  body  of  this 
work,  in  order  to  show  that  it  fails  to  confirm  the 
late  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  "  Introductory 
on  Dr.  Kuenen's  Religion  of  Israel"  examines  the 
validity  of  these  reasons  as  presented  by  the 
Dutch  school,  and  I  do  not  wish  to  enlarge  this 
work  by  a  mere  repetition  of  the  argument  in 
another  form  and  in  other  words.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  the  special  arguments  of  Graf  and  sev- 
eral other  vv'riters. 


PREFACE.  3 

This  work  is  not  addressed  to  scholars,  but  is 
an  appeal  to  the  sound  sense  and  sober  thought  of 
the  people.  It  has  been  published  at  the  request, 
however,  of  scholars,  professors  in  theological 
schools,  and  ministers  of  different  denominations, 
for  their  own  use  and  for  the  use  of  their  classes 
and  parishes.  I  have  not,  therefore,  filled  the 
bottom  of  the  page  with  references,  as  it  would 
have  been  very  easy  to  have  done  ;  for  they  would 
have  been  utterly  useless  to  the  great  body  of  the 
people,  for  whose  instruction  I  send  forth  this 
book.  Let  my  readers  take  their  Bibles  and  com- 
pare my  argument  in  this  "  Study,"  as  they  read 
it,  with  the  sacred  narrative,  and  exercise  the 
same  sound,  practical  judgment  respecting  its  va- 
lidity which  they  exercise  in  the  common  affairs 
of  life,  and  I  have  no  fear  of  the  result.  May 
the  Source  of  all  Truth  bless  this  endeavor  to  find 
and  proclaim  it ! 

I  have  in  manuscript,  ready  for  the  press,  a 
"  Popular  Introduction,  or  Common-Sense  View 
of  the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,"  which  I 
hope  in  good  time  to  publish. 

RuFUS  P.  Stebbins. 

Newton  Centre,  Mass.,  October,  1881. 


ERRATA. 

Several  errors,  principally  verbal  and  grammatical,  in  this  vol- 
ume, will  be  corrected  in  future  editions.  The  following  errors  of 
most  importance  are  here  corrected  :  — 

Page  II,  thirteenth  line,  for  "he"  read  "earlier  writers";  four- 
teenth line,  for  "his  "  read  "their."  In  foot-note  on  same  page, 
for  "38"  read  "24." 

Page  29,  fifth  line,  instead  of  "  None  is  given, —  not  a  line,  not 
a  letter,"  read  "  Some  proof  of  a  part  of  them,  very  weak  and  in- 
conclusive, is  attempted.  Vol.  I.,  page  283  and  following." 

Page  33,  first  line  of  note,  after  "  by  "  read  "  or  after  the  time  of." 
Page  134,  section  iv.,  seventh  line,  omit  "Joshua  and." 
Page  152,  fourth  line  from  bottom,  insert  "some  of  "  after  "by," 
and  after  "Leviticus  "  insert  "xvii. — " 

Page  175,  note,  fifth  line,  for  "442,  443,"  read  "432,  433." 
Page  193,  eleventh  line  from  the  bottom,  read  "  sufficient "  for 
"  insufficient." 
Page  196,  fourth  line,  for  "xxix."  read  "xxviii." 


CONTENTS. 

Page 


Introductory  on  "Kuenen's  Religion  of  Israel,"  7 
A  Study  of  the  Pentateuch. 

I.  Introduction, 75 

II.  External  Evidences, 82 

III.  Internal  Evidences, 157 

Analytical  Index, 231 


INTRODUCTORY 


Dr.  KUENEN'S  "RELIGION  OF  ISRAEL"* 


Of  the  brilliant  constellation  of  Dutch  Biblical  crit- 
ics which  has  just  risen  above  the  horizon,  Dr.  Kuenen 
appears  to  be  the  principal  star.  His  works  on  The 
Religion  of  Israel  and  The  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in 
Israel  ZXQ.  by  far  the  most  extensive  and  elaborate  of 
any  works  of  this  new  and  able  school  of  writers. 
The  eyes  of  scholars  are  now  turned  from  Germany  to 
Holland  ;  and  the  wonder  of  some  and  the  admiration 
of  others  are  challenged  to  the  utmost.  Condemnation 
and  laudation  will  be  visited  upon  these  authors  in 
unstinted  measure;  for  they  give  no  quarter  to  dissen- 
tients, and  will,  therefore,  receive  none  from  them. 
They  write  in  a  tone  of  perfect  self-reliance,  and  hold 
in  low  estimate  any  opinions  not  corresponding  with 
theirs.  The  infallibility  of  the  late  Pio  Nono  was 
modesty  compared  with  the  dogmatic  certainty  with 
which   they   make   affirmations   upon   subjects    about 

•  The  Religion  of  Israel  to  tlu  Fall  of  the  Jewish  State.  By  Dr.  A.  Kue- 
nen, Professor  of  Theology  at  the  University  of  Leyden.  Translated  from  the 
Dutch  by  Alfred  Heath  May.  Vol.  I.,  pp.  ix.,413.  1874.  Vol.  II.,  pp.  307. 
1875.  Vol.  III.,  pp.  345.  1875.  8vo.  Williams  &  Norgate,  14  Henrietta 
Street,  Covent  Garden,  London,  and  20  South  Frederick  Street,  Edinburgh. 


8  INTRODUCTORY. 

which  such  scholars  as  Gesenius,  Ewald,  De  Wetie,  to 
say  nothing  of  others  hardly  their  inferiors,  hesitated 
to  give  an  opinion,  much  less  to  dogmatize.  The 
emphatic  manner  in  which  they  announce  as  finalities 
some  of  the  flimsiest  of  their  speculations  and  hypoth- 
eses provokes  a  smile.*  There  will  be  ample  and  fre- 
quent opportunity  to  illustrate  this  signal  characteristic 
of  the  work  under  review  in  the  course  of  this  essay. 
The  style  of  this  work  of  Dr.  Kuenen's  is  as  dry  as 
it  is  dogmatic.  We  are  informed,  by  those  competent 
to  judge,  that  the  translator  has  done  no  injustice  to 
the  original.  It  is  true  that  freshness  and  raciness 
are  not  to  be  expected  as  the  prime  qualities  of  a  work 
of  this  kind ;  yet  it  ought  to  be  exempt  from  jejune- 
ness,  and  to  be  animated  and  warm  with  the  dignity 
and  importance  of  the  subject.  It  should  surely 
kindle  some  enthusiasm  to  trace  the  history  of  a 
people  like  the  Jews,  and  describe  a  literature  which 
includes  such  writings  as  the  Book  of  Job,  the  Psalms, 
and  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  and  Amos  and  Joel  and 
Hosea.  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Kuenen  is  not  writing  a 
history  of  the  literature  of  Israel,  and  may  not  have 
felt  any  of  the  admiration  which  an  appreciative  reader 
of  these  marvellous  productions  cannot  suppress,  as 
he  feels  the  glow  and  heart-throb  in  every  syllable  of 
the  ancient  poet.  His  eye  was  fixed  almost  exclu- 
sively on  "altars"  and  "asheras"  and  "bull-gods," 
and  "chiuns"  and  "chemoshes"  and  "  Molochs  "  and 
"Levites"  and  "priests"  and  the  "ritual"  that  was 
not  before  Ezekiel  "certainly,"  not  before  Ezra  "prob- 
ably."    Dr.  Kuenen's   theme  was  the  "religion,"  not 

*See  Appendix  A,  p.  59. 


KUENEN  S    RELIGION   OF    ISRAEL.  9 

the  literature,  of  Israel,  and  he  is  not  to  be  blamed  but 
praised  for  adhering  to  it.  If  it  was  a  dry  subject,  it 
was  not  his  fault.  He  is  responsible  only  for  its  treat- 
ment. To  an  examination  of  this,  we  will  now  address 
ourselves. 

Dr.  Kuenen,  in  the  three  octavo  volumes  before  us, 
treats  of  the  development  of  the  "Religion  of  Israel" 
from  the  earliest  period  down  "to  the  fall  of  the  Jew- 
ish State."  He  does  not  fail  of  doing  justice  to  the 
theme  for  want  of  space.  Three  octavo  volumes, 
including  over  one  thousand  closely-printed  pages, 
cannot  be  judged  a  cramped  or  an  abbreviated  discus- 
sion of  the  subject.  As  far  as  quantity  is  concerned, 
there  is  no  ground  for  fault-finding.  What,  then,  is  the 
quality  of  the  work  done  by  the  author  ? 

With  an  honorable  frankness,  at  the  very  start  Dr. 
Kuenen  states  his  "stand-point,"  his  "sources  of  in- 
formation," and  "the  plan  and  division"  of  his  history. 
"  Our  stand-point,"  he  says,  "  is  sketched  in  a  single 
stroke,  as  it  were,  by  the  manner  in  which  this  work 
sees  the  light.  It  does  not  stand  entirely  alone,  but  is 
one  of  a  number  of  monographs  on  '  the  principal  re- 
ligions.' For  us,  the  Israelitish  is  one  of  these  relig- 
ions, nothing  less,  but  also  nothing  more."  These 
religions  may  differ  from  each  other  in  value,  but  one 
is  no  more  a  special  revelation  from  God  than  another. 
Christianity  belongs  in  the  same  category.  All  relig- 
ions claim  to  be  revelations  from  God,  and  the  claims 
of  all  are  equally  delusive.  This  is  the  author's 
"stand-point,"  from  which  he  views  and  discusses  the 
"religion  of  Israel."*     It  is  not  our  purpose  to  chal- 

•  Vol.  I.,  pp.  5-12. 


I O  INTRODUCTORY. 

lenge  its  justness,  at  least  not  in  this  stage  of  the  dis- 
cussion. 

The  author's  "sources  of  information"  are  "the 
entire  literature  of  Israel,  so  far  as  it  originated  in  the 
period  "  of  which  he  treats.  The  value  of  each  writ- 
er's opinion  and  testimony  must  be  determined  by  the 
age  in  which  he  lived  and  the  authorities  which  he 
used.  Hence  "  it  is  of  the  highest  importance  to  trace 
out  and  determine,  first  of  all,  the  age  of  the  various 
books  and  of  their  several  constituent  parts, —  for  in- 
stance, of  the  different  prophets  and  psalms."  But 
the  authors  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, from  Genesis  to  Esther,  were  not  contemporaries 
with  the  events  which  they  record ;  and,  therefore,  we 
cannot  receive  their  account  of  the  origin  and  devel- 
opment of  their  religion,  unless  it  agrees  with  the  laws 
of  human  progress,  as  understood  by  the  author. 
These  histories  also  contain  narratives  of  incredible 
events,  miracles, —  such  as  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea 
and  the  Jordan,  the  manna,  the  wandering  in  the  wil- 
derness, the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai.  AH  these 
events  are  simply  impossible,  and  are  therefore  incredi- 
ble. Hence,  we  discover  that  these  writers  "  fearlessly 
allowed  themselves  to  be  guided  in  their  statements 
by  the  wants  of  the  present  and  the  requirements  of 
the  future.  They  considered  themselves  exempt  from 
all  responsibility."  The  priests  and  the  prophets  took 
opposite  views,  and  perverted  history  to  sustain  their 
respective  opinions.  The  narrative  of  the  same  trans- 
action in  the  Books  of  the  Kings  differs  widely  from 
that  given  in  the  Books  of  the  Chronicles.  In  these 
latter  and  later  books,  the  priests  colored  or  invented 


kuen:ns  religion  of  Israel.  ii 

the  history  to  suit  their  ends,  without  regard  to  truth.* 
We  give  an  illustration  referred  to  by  Dr.  Kuenen  as 
a  type  of  the  style  of  these  falsifying  historians :  "  If 
any  one  wishes  to  form  an  idea  of  the  modifications 
which  the  materials  supplied  by  tradition  underwent 
upon  being  worked  up  afresh,  let  him  compare  together 
II.  Kings  xi.,  and  II.  Chronicles  xxii.,  lo;  —  xxiii.,  21. 
If  the  chronicler,  under  the  influence  of  his  sympathy 
for  priests  and  Levites,  could  give  such  an  entirely 
different  version  of  the  elevation  of  Joash  to  the  throne 
of  his  fathers,  which  was  related  with  perfect  clearness 
in  the  older  account,  with  which  he  was  well  acquainted, 
how  much  more  likely"  was  it  that  he  should  handle 
the  more  ancient  narratives  in  a  manner  to  answer  his 
priestly  end.     (The  italics  are  ours.) 

Such  is  the  statement  of  Dr.  Kuenen's  chosen  illus- 
tration of  the  partisan  bias  of  the  chronicler,  and  its 
influence  on  his  work.  Let  us  examine  its  value  and 
by  it  judge  the  value  of  all  such  accusations. 

I.  Dr.  Kuenen  says  his  "  materials  were  supplied  by 
tradition.^''  The  chronicler  says  that  these  things  and 
more  "  are  written  in  the  story  of  the  Book  of  the 
Kings,"  xxiv.,  27  ;  and  the  historian  of  the  reign  of 
Joash,  in  II,  Kings  xi.,  xii.,  says  that  "the  rest  of  the 
acts  of  Joash  and  all  that  he  did  are  written  ...  in  the 
Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Judah."  Both 
writers  relied  upon  written  documents  and  not  upon 
"  tradition."     Comment  is  unnecessary, 

II.  Dr,  Kuenen  assumes  that  the  chronicler  had  be- 
fore him  no  written  documents  except  our  Book  of 
Kings,  and  that  he  "  worked  up  "  the  facts  there  re- 

*Vol.  I.,  p.  38. 


12  INTRODUCTORY. 

corded  as  he  pleased.  The  work  which  he  refers  to 
here  and  in  other  places  is  apparently  a  very  different 
one  from  our  Book  of  Kings,  and  was  undoubtedly  the 
public  records  which  had  been  saved  during  the  cap- 
tivity. But  how  could  Dr.  Kuenen  say  that  his  "  mate- 
rials were  supplied  by  tradition,"  when  he  was  perfectly 
"well  acquainted  "  with  the  "  older  account"  in  Kings, 
which  he  had  "worked  up  "  to  suit  his  priestly  ends.-* 

III.  Dr.  Kuenen  accuses  the  writer  of  falsifying  his- 
tory to  sustain  the  priestly  pretensions,  not  to  say  usur- 
pations, of  his  age,  for  two  reasons  :  one,  because  he  is 
fuller  in  his  account  of  the  action  of  the  priests  during 
the  reign  of  Joash,  and  the  other,  apparently,  because, 
if  the  chronicler's  narrative  is  substantially  correct,  his, 
Dr.  Kuenen's,  theory  of  the  development  of  the  religion 
of  Israel  is  false.  We  have  nothing  to  say  about  the 
latter  reason.  Of  the  former,  we  say  that  the  writer  of 
the  Kings  may  be  in  error.  But  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  both  writers  are  not  substantially  correct. 
There  is  no  direct  contradiction  between  them.  Apply- 
ing the  common  rule  of  criticism,  that  "  what  one  does 
by  another  he  does  himself,"  there  is  no  appearance  of 
contradiction  in  their  accounts.  Jehoiada,  the  high- 
priest,  and  the  priests,  are  represented  in  Kings  as 
being  very  active  in  both  civil  and  religious  affairs. 
The  special  services  which  they  rendered  in  both  are 
more  fully  narrated  by  the  chronicler ;  but  there  is  not 
a  shadow  of  evidence  that  he  was  laboring  under  such 
an  ecclesiastical  bias  as  to  lead  him  to  falsify  history, 
that  he  might  exalt  the  priesthood  to  honor.  On  the 
contrary,  he  relates,  without  rebuke,  how,  in  the  great 
reformation  under  Hezekiah,  II.  Chronicles  xxix.,  34, 


KUENEN  S    RELIGION   OF    ISRAEL.  13 

when  *'  the  priests  were  too  few,  so  that  they  could  not 
flay  all  the  burnt  offerings,  their  brethren,  the  Levites, 
did  help  them  till  the  work  was  ended,  and  until  the 
other  priests  had  sanctified  themselves  ;  for  the  Levites 
were  more  upright  in  heart  to  sanctify  thejnselves  than  the 
priests.'"  A  writer  whose  purpose  was  to  elevate  the 
priesthood  above  the  Levites  would  not  have  thus 
written.     See  also  xxx.,  15,  17  ;  xxxv.,  10-15. 

IV.  Dr.  Kuenen  says  the  chronicler  gives  "  an  en- 
tirely different  version  of  the  elevation  of  Joash  to  the 
throne"  from  the  writer  of  Kings.  Let  us  note  the 
facts :  Jehosheba  "  took  Joash  and  hid  him  and  his 
nurse  in  the  bed-chamber  from  Athaliah,  so  that  he 
was  not  slain "  in  the  massacre  of  the  rest  of  the 
family ;  so  also  the  chronicler  states.  He  was  hid  six 
years;  so  the  chronicler.  And  in  the  seventh  year 
Jehoiada  gathered  the  rulers  over  hundreds  and  other 
officers  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  where  they  took  an 
oath  and  made  a  covenant,  and  showed  them  the  king's 
son  and  crowned  him,  stationi.ig  a  guard  in  different 
parts  of  the  city  and  temple  ;  the  chronicler  only  adds 
that  in  the  temple  as  guards  none  but  priests  and 
Levites  entered.  When  Athaliah  learned  what  was 
done,  and  cried  "  Treason  !  "  she  was  slain  ;  so  the 
chronicler.  And  Jehoiada  took  the  king  to  the  king's 
house,  and  sat  him  on  the  throne  of  the  kingdom  :  the 
same  in  Chronicles,  save  that  Jehoiada  arraigned  also 
the  priests,  that  the  services  of  the  temple  might  be 
renewed,  as  it  is  "  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,"  Are 
these  '•'■  ejitirely  different  versions  of  the  elevation  of 
Joash  to  the  throne  of  his  fathers "  ?  We  submit 
that  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  two  accounts  of  tlic 


14  INTRODUCTORY, 

coronation  of  Queen  Victoria  more  alike.  We  are 
curious  to  know  what  accounts  Dr.  Kuenen  would 
call  similar  if  these  are  ^''entirely  different"* 

But  it  is  time  to  return  from  specific  criticism  to  a 
consideration  of  the  main  course  of  argument  in  the 
work  before  us;  were  we  to  yield  to  the  temptation 
offered,  we  should  write  a  volume. 

Such  being  "  the  condition  of  the  sources  of  our  in- 
formation," Dr.  Kuenen  may  well  ask,  "  How  are  we  to 
endeavor  to  arrive  at  historical  truth"  respecting  the 
religion  of  the  people? 

The  answer  to  this  question  discloses  the  " plati  "  of 
the  author.     It  is  as  follows  :  — 

"  We  offer,  for  instance,  a  supposition  witli  respect  to 
the  Mosaic  period.  On  the  strength  of  various  indi- 
cations, we  assume  that  the  people  of  Israel  and  the 
man  who  delivered  them  out  of  their  bondage  in  Egypt 
had  reached  such  and  such  a  degree  of  religious  devel- 
opment. We  proceed  with  our  investigation,  and  grad- 
ually come  to  the  centuries  during  which  the  narratives 
about  Moses  and  his  work  were  written  down.  We 
now  succeed  in  showing  that,  "  if  our  conception  of  the 
course  of  historical  development  be  the  true  one,  the  repre- 
sentation given  in  these  narratives  must  necessarily  have 
been  fanned  at  that  time,  and  could  have  assumed  no 
otlier  shape."! 

This  is  frank  and  intelligible.  The  author  informs 
us  that  he  ^^  assumes"  as  an  historical  verity  a  certain 
state  of  "  religious  development,"  and  then  affirms  that 
if,  according  to  his  theory  of  the  evolution  of  ideas  and 
human  progress,  the  condition  of  the  people,  five  or  ten 

•Vol.  I.,  pp.  12-27.  t  Vol.  I.,  pp.  26-32. 


KUENEN'S    religion   of   ISRAEL.  15 

centuries  later,  conforiiis  to  the  demands  of  the  theory, 
the  "assumed"  state  of  things  was  correct,  and  the 
representation  of  those  early  ages  given  in  the  histor- 
ical books  must  have  been  merely  the  mistaken  con- 
ception of  the  writers ;  and  proves  that  all  narratives 
containing  such  representations  of  opinions  must  have 
been  written  at  a  later  period,  since  no  such  opinions, 
according  to  his  theory  of  development,  could  have 
been  entertained  by  the  men  of  the  Mosaic  age,  nor 
long  subsequent  to  it.  In  short,  Dr.  Kuenen  has  a 
theory  respecting  what  could,  and  could  not,  have  been 
believed  and  done  in  the  Mosaic  and  following  age; 
and  since  the  historical  books  do  not  sustain  that  theory, 
they  are  not  ancient,  they  are  not  reliable ;  the  v/riters  have 
attributed  opinions,  laws,  customs  of  their  own  times  to 
the  time  of  their  great  ancestor.  It  does  not  appear  to 
have  occurred  to  Dr.  Kuenen  that  his  theory  may  be 
wrong,  and  that  the  old  histories  may  be  substantially 
correct.  Now  if  his  theory,  or  assumption,  or  "sup- 
position" is  without  solid  foundation  in  reason  and 
undoubted  facts,  then  the  whole  elaborate  structure  of 
his  work, — 

"  Like  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision, 
.  .  .  shall  dissolve. 
And  leave  not  a  rack  behind." 

Such  is  the  "//a«,"  the  theory,  which  is  to  determine 
the  age  and  value  of  the  Old  Testament  books  and  the 
opinions  which  were  prevalent  among  the  Israelites  in 
the  time  of  Moses,  and  in  all  subsequent  times  :  —  if  a 
book  contains  opinions  and  describes  customs  and  al- 
ludes to  religious  rites,  which,  according  to  Dr.  Kuenen's 


1 6  INTRODUCTORY. 

theory,  could  not  have  been  developed  and  prevalent  at  so 
early  a  period,  then  the  writer,  tinwittingly  or  maliciously, 
states  what  is  false ;  for  all  historical  truth  or  falsehood 
is  to  be  tested  by  this  theory.  It  is  the  Procrustean  bed 
on  which  all  statements  are  to  be  fitted,  however  great 
the  compression  or  extension. 

Where,  then,  does  the  author  think  he  finds  solid 
ground  on  whicli  he  may  stand,  and  whence  he  can 
take  his  departure  and  apply  his  theory  of  historical 
verity  ?  As  there  is  almost  no  historical  literature  ex- 
tant which  was  composed  before  the  captivity,  588  B.C., 
the  writings  of  the  early  prophets  are  examined  to 
learn  the  condition  of  religion  and  religious  customs  in 
Israel,  808-700  B.C.  Amos,  Hosea,  Isaiah,  Zechariah, 
Micah,  and  Nahum  are  accepted  as  authority,  and 
quoted  to  show  what  opinions  were  prevalent,  and 
what  rites  were  customary  in  the  eighth  century  before 
Christ,  the  fifth  or  sixth  century  after  Moses.  Dr. 
Kuenen  does  not  omit  the  prophet  Joel  on  any  theo- 
retical grounds,  but  because  some  writers  place  him  in 
a  later  period.  There  is  no  valid  reason,  however,  why 
the  writings  of  Joel,  as  well  as  those  of  the  other 
prophets  named,  should  not  be  considered  as  good 
authority  for  the  religious  condition  of  this  period. 

In  order  to  understand  the  bearing  of  these  quota- 
tions on  Dr.  Kuenen's  theory,  it  is  necessary  now  to 
state,  in  as  intelligible  a  manner  as  brevity  will  admit, 
the  order  of  the  evolution  of  religious  ideas,  as  assumed 
in  this  theory  among  men,  and  especially  among  the 
ancestors  of  the  Israelites,  and  among  the  Israelites 
themselves.  The  first  religious  state  is  fetichism,  pre- 
Abrahamic ;  then  polytheism,  sub-Abrahamic,  down  to 


KUENEN  S    RELIGION   OF    ISRAEL  1 7 

the  return  from  the  captivity ;  then  monotheism.  A 
few  men  were  monotheists  so  far  as  Israel  was  con- 
cerned. This  people  had  but  one  God.  They  believed, 
however,  there  were  other  gods  for  other  nations,  and 
no  more  doubted  their  existence  than  they  doubted  the 
existence  of  Jahveh.  Moses  was  one  of  these,  and 
others  succeeded  him  ;  but  they  were  few  who  believed 
in  but  one  God  for  Israel.  The  idea  of  God  became 
purer,  however,  as  generations  passed  away,  till,  in  the 
eighth  century,  in  the  time  of  Amos,  very  much  more 
worthy  and  nobler  views  were  entertained  of  the  nature 
and  character  of  the  Supreme  Being,  and  worthier  and 
purer  worship  was  demanded.  The  sacrifices  of  beasts 
and  fruits  were  remanded  to  a  secondary  place,  and 
human  sacrifices  were  pronounced  abhorrent  to  God. 
Moses  wrote  nothing  of  the  Pentateuch  but  an  abbre- 
viated form  of  the  Ten  Commandments  or  "  Ten 
Words."  A  few  chapters  in  Exodus  and  Leviticus  may 
have  been  composed  before  settling  in  Canaan ;  but 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  not  composed  till  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  620  B.C.,  and  the  historical  portions 
of  the  four  other  books  were  not  written  till  the  cap- 
tivity. Ezra  and  his  fellow-priests  drew  up  nearly  the 
whole  ritual  as  we  now  find  it  in  Leviticus  and  the 
other  books  of  the  Pentateuch  just  before  his  return  to 
Jerusalem  from  Babylon,  and  brought  it  with  him, 
and  introduced  it,  vi'ith  the  aid  of  Nehemiah  and  the 
priests,  as  a  Mosaic  production,  and  venerable  with  age 
and  the  observance  of  the  fathers ;  and  the  Books  of 
Chronicles  were  written,  perverting  and  falsifying  his- 
tory, to  sustain  the  false  claim  of  J^zra's  ritual  to  an- 
tiquity and  the  supremacy  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  tlie 


1 8  INTRODUCTORY. 

dignity  and  sacredness  of  the  priesthood.  The  older 
historian  of  the  Books  of  the  Kings  had  no  knowl- 
edge of  any  such  ritual  and  priesthood.  The  prophets 
disappeared  before  the  new  order  of  priests,  and  the 
voice  of  the  poet-preacher  was  stifled  by  the  smoke  of 
holocausts. 

In  due  time,  after  centuries  of  struggle,  suffering, 
despair,  and  hope,  the  great  Teacher  came  and  an- 
nounced a  spiritual  worship,  demanding  no  sacrifice 
but  a  devout  heart,  no  temple  but  a  consecrated  spirit ; 
and  Judaism  blossomed  into  Christianity,  and  the  relig- 
ion of  Israel  was  transformed  into  the  religion  of  the 
world.  Such  is  substantially  Dr.  Kuenen's  theory  of 
the  development  of  religious  ideas  in  Israel,  and  the 
origin  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  We  are 
confident  that  we  have  not  omitted  any  important  par- 
ticular or  element  of  it. 

We  now  return  to  an  examination  of  Dr.  Kuenen's 
method  of  laying  the  foundation  of  his  proof  of  this 
theory  or  hypothesis  in  the  writings  of  the  prophets, 
named  on  a  previous  page,  who  wrote  during  the  eighth 
century  before  Christ,  or  five  or  six  centuries  after  the 
putative  time  of  Moses.  And  now  let  it  be  most  dis- 
tinctly understood  that  the  historical  books  are  ruled 
out  of  this  discussion  for  the  present  by  Dr.  Kuenen's 
own  decision  of  their  modern  date  and  careless  or  un- 
scrupulous writers.  He  must  not  refer  to  them  when 
they  record  something  which  corresponds  with  his  the- 
ory, and  ignore  them  or  challenge  them  when  they 
record  something  which  opposes  his  theory.  No  doubt 
he  intends  to  hold  the  scales  evenly  balanced,  but  he 
is  sometimes  tempted  beyond  what  he  is  able  to  bear 


KUENEN's   religion  of   ISRAEL.  19 

to  appeal  as  authority  to  the  very  witness  he  has  pro- 
nounced not  trustworthy.  Examples  of  this  weakness 
would  be  given  were  it  necessary  for  our  purpose,  but 
our  space  is  all  of  it  to  the  last  letter  demanded  for 
our  special  object,  namely,  to  show  the  radical  defect 
and  failure  oi  Dr.  Kuenen's  supposed  proof  of  his  the- 
ory respecting  the  origin  of  these  books,  and  hence  of 
the  origin  and  development  of  the  "  Religion  of  Israel." 
In  the  very  brief  writings  of  these  prophets,  "  mono- 
theism "  is  most  emphatically  taught,  and  the  sin  of 
worshipping  idols  and  serving  the  gods  of  other  nations 
is  most  emphatically  rebuked ;  and  the  severest  calam- 
ities are  threatened  if  they  forsake  "  the  law  of "  Jeho- 
vah; and  "captivity"  as  well  as  "drouth"  and  "lo- 
custs "  are  predicted  as  the  portion  of  the  nation,  if 
the  people  obey  not  God,  and  do  not  observe  his 
"  commandments."  The  temple  was  in  existence,  sac- 
rifices were  offered,  feasts  were  kept,  "  priests  "  served 
at  the  altar,  and  "  the  law  "  was  often  appealed  to  as  a 
rule  of  duty.  In  these  brief  fragments  of  the  poetic 
addresses  of  the  prophets,  we  have  allusions  to  all  the 
main  features  of  the  ritual  service  as  described  in 
Chronicles  and  Ezra.  The  sternness  of  the  rebukes 
of  these  prophets,  when  they  saw  the  wickedness  of 
the  people  in  making  and  worshipping  idols,  is  not 
strange;  is  far  from  being  "a  remarkable  phenome- 
non," even  when  producing  open  "conflict"  and  perse- 
cution. What  may  be  done  and  said  without  opposi- 
tion in  Holland  now  we  do  not  know ;  but  what  was 
done  to  free  speakers  and  writers  centuries  ago  we 
know  well  enough  ;  and  we  know  that  in  later  times 
Fox   and   Wesley  and   Whitefield  were  persecuted  as 


20  INTRODUCTORY. 

bitterly  as  those  prophets  of  800  B.C.,  to  say  nothing 
of  Rogers  and  Cranmer,  the  martyrs  of  bloody  Mary, 
and  the  victims  of  the  merciless  Jeffries,  cruelly  tor- 
tured in  the  blasphemed  name  of  religion.  There  are 
no  "  causes  "  far  to  seek,  or  hard  to  understand,  as 
Dr.  Kuenen  supposes,  why  these  prophets  were  assailed 
by  the  law-breakers,  the  cruel,  the  false,  the  idol-wor- 
shippers, and  idol-makers.  The  "conflict"  is  as  old  as 
time,  and  will  continue  till  time  shall  be  no  longer. 
Yet  our  author  infers  —  nay,  affirms  —  that  this  "  con- 
flict" and  persecution  could  not  have  arisen  if  the 
Pentateuch  had  existed. 

One  would  suppose  that  Dr.  Kuenen  would  now  ex- 
amine with  closest  scrutiny  these  statements,  so  clear 
and  explicit,  and  their  bearing  upon  his  theory,  which 
these  writers,  whose  veracity  he  does  not  question, 
furnish  so  abundantly.  He  does  no  such  thing.  He 
hastens  to  inquire  into  "  the  earlier  fortune  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel,"  as  if  he  perceived  that  these  prophets 
furnished  his  theory  no  support.  But  what  materials 
has  he,  on  his  own  theory,  to  furnish  him  any  informa- 
tion about  it  ?  Not  a  line  of  history  was  written,  as  he 
affirms,  till  this  period,  or  later ;  and  what  was  written 
then  was  "not  historical."  The  writers  of  most  of 
these  historical  books,  called  so  only  by  way  of  cour- 
tesy, lived,  on  the  theory  of  Dr.  Kuenen,  after  these 
prophets,  and  "  considered  themselves  exempt  from  all 
responsibility  "  as  to  the  truth  of  the  events  which  they 
narrate.  If  there  is  no  reliable  record  of  events  pre- 
vious to  800  B.C.,  we  are  very  much  at  a  loss  to  guess 
where  he  gets  his  information.  If  he  writes  from  his 
"inner   consciousness"  only,  his  history  has  no  more 


KUENENS   RELIGION   OF   ISRAEL.  21 

reliable  source  than  that  of  those  old  Jewish  writers 
whom  he  so  soundly  berates  for  their  groundless  sto- 
ries. If  the  Books  of  the  Kings  and  of  Samuel  are 
not  reliable  accounts,  how  can  he  quote  them  as  he 
does  to  show  the  state,  civil  and  religious,  of  the  people 
"earlier"  than  the  eighth  century ?  We  stand  firmly 
here.  Dr.  Kuenen  must  either  reject  or  accept  these 
historical  books  as  being  substantially  reliable.  If  he 
accepts  them,  then  the  controversy  is  ended,  and  his 
emphatic  condemnation  of  the  untrustworthiness  of 
their  writers  is  a  gross  injustice.  If  he  rejects  them, 
then  he  has  no  right  to  appeal  to  them  as  authority  in 
any  case  whatever.  He  can  take  which  horn  of  the 
dilemma  he  chooses.  He  cannot  be  permitted  to  select 
here  and  there  a  story,  cull  out  here  and  there  a  sen- 
tence, because  it  answers  the  purposes  of  his  theory 
and  confirms  his  "  assumption,"  and  reject  all  the  rest. 
The  references  to  the  early  history  and  customs  of 
the  people  from  the  time  of  Abraham  onward  are  so 
numerous  in  these  prophets  that  Dr.  Kuenen  confesses 
that  we  should  be  compelled  to  suppose  that  at  least 
Micah  "  was  acquainted  with  those  narratives  "  as  con- 
tained in  the  Pentateuch,  "  unless  appearances  should 
tend  to  show  that  they  were  written  or  modified  at  a 
later  date," — that  is,  later  than  the  time  of  these 
prophets  ;*  and  this  Dr.  Kuenen  believes.  They  were 
not  written  till  the  time  of  the  captivity,  or  two  hundred 
years  later  than  the  time  of  these  prophets.  What 
these  prophets  say,  therefore,  about  the  early  past,  they 
have  no  authority  for.  They  only  express  '■'■the  idea 
which  was  entertained  of  that  history  in  the  eighth  century 

*  Vol.    I.,  pp.    I02,  103. 


22  INTRODUCTORY. 

B.Cr  Be  it  so.  Then  it  is  only  repeating  the  folly  of 
the  "  wild  ass  that  eateth  up  the  east  wind  "  to  rake 
over  the  stories  in  Genesis  and  Exodus,  which  were  not 
committed  to  writing  till  two  centuries  after  this  period, 
to  supplement  the  "  ideas "  of  the  eighth  century  as 
given  by  these  prophets.  Our  author  does  it,  however, 
and  concludes  that  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  '"'■  are 
not  historical  personages."  Nor  are  the  twelve  tribes 
descendants  of  Jacob's  twelve  sons.  There  may  be 
some  truth,  but  not  much,  in  the  account  of  the  emi- 
gration from  Egypt,  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness, 
the  entrance  and  partial  conquest  of  Canaan,  and  the 
anarchical  condition  from  the  time  of  Joshua  to  the 
coronation  of  Saul.  But  he  who  believes  least  of  what 
is  told  is  the  wisest  man.* 

Dr.  Kuenen,  however,  becomes  so  enamoured  with 
these  old  story-tellers  that  he  gives  us  three  chapters 
more  upon  "  The  Israelitish  Prophets  before  and  during 
the  Eighth  Century  B.C.,"  and  "  The  Course  of  Israel's 
Religious  Development,"  and  "  The  History  of  Israel's 
Religious  Development  before  and  during  the  Eighth 
Century  B.C."  Now  let  it  be  most  distinctly  under- 
stood that  for  every  fact,  or  supposed  fact,  in  these 
three  chapters,  covering  two  hundred  and  twenty-four 
pages.  Dr.  Kuenen  is  indebted  to  these  same  books 
which  he  affirms  to  have  been  written  not  only  by  men 
who  lived  from  a  thousand  to  five  hundred  years  after 
the  events  described,  but  by  men  who  "considered 
themselves  exempted  from  all  responsibility "  to  tell 
the  truth  !  No  statement  of  fantastic  act  in  the  life  of 
Samson  would  be   antecedently  more  incredible  than 

•Vol.  I.,  p.  384. 


KUENEn's    religion    of    ISRAEL.  23 

this.  And  yet  the  thing  has  been  done  by  a  renowned 
scholar, —  the  pages  are  open  before  us  in  all  their  com- 
pact beauty.  But  if  Dr.  Kuenen's  theory  is  correct, 
if  his  statements  respecting  the  unhistorical  character 
of  these  books  are  to  be  accepted,  then  it  is  the  beauty 
of  a  harlot ;  for  he  can  put  no  more  historical  truth 
into  these  chapters  of  his  book  than  he  finds  in  these 
books  of  the  Old  Bible ;  and,  if  they  are  untrue,  these 
chapters  are  untrue.  The  same  fountain  cannot  send 
forth  sweet  waters  and  bitter,  truth  and  lies.  The  logic 
of  the  whole  matter  is,  that  methods  and  places  of 
worship,  customs  and  habits  of  life,  prevailed,  accord- 
ing to  these  writers,  down  to  this  eighth  century,  in 
direct  violation  of  the  Mosaic  law  as  recorded  in  the 
Pentateuch,  and  which  would  not  have  prevailed  had 
the  Mosaic  law  been  in  existence  or  been  known  by 
the  people.  Therefore^  the  Mosaic  laws,  so  called,  were 
not  composed  till  after  the  eighth  century  B.C. !  A 
most  magnificent  non  sequitur.  As  if  the  violation  of 
a  law  was  any  evidence  that  the  law  was  not  on  the 
statute-book !  Or,  to  state  the  matter  differently,  as  if 
the  performance  of  an  act  was  proof  that  there  was  no 
law  against  it,  or  that  the  existence  of  a  custom  was 
proof  that  there  was  no  statute  forbidding  it.  Accord- 
ing to  these  "unhistorical"  books  of  unknown  author- 
ship and  irresponsible  composition,  other  men  than 
priests  offered  sacrifices,  in  other  places  than  at  the 
tabernacle.  Punishments  were  inflicted  by  men  having 
no  authority,  and  which  were  cruel  and  vindictive  to 
the  last  degree.  The  laws  of  Moses,  in  a  word,  were 
not  observed,  and  therefore  they  did  not  exist, —  one  of 


24  INTRODUCTORY. 

the  most  inconclusive  inferences  which  could  possibly 
be  drawn.     All  history  shows  its  fallacy.  * 

Passing  on  from  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  the  next 
chapter  treats  of  "  The  Religion  of  Israel  to  the  Fall 
of  Jerusalem,  in  B.C.  588."  The  only  two  points  of 
special  interest  discussed  in  this  chapter  are  (i)  the 
reform  under  Hezekiah,  who  overthrew  the  altars  of 
the  idols,  and  cut  down  the  groves  [or  the  asheras], 
and  made  a  very  thorough  change  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  religion  of  the  people ;  and  (2)  the  finding 
of  the  "  Book  of  the  Law,"  in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  by 
Hilkiah,  the  priest.  It  is  necessary  to  pause  a  moment 
to  consider  the  value  of  these  incidents  in  settling  the 
age  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Hezekiah  attempted  to  reform  the  worship  of  the 
people,  which,  it  is  very  important  to  note,  for  over  a 
century  had  been  growing  grosser  and  grosser,  like  the 
ceremonies  of  the  Romish  Church  during  the  Dark 
Ages.  Idols  were  set  up  and  altars  erected  and  sacri- 
fices offered  on  the  "  high  places."  The  prophets  de- 
nounced these  practices  in  vain.  The  kings  were  sat- 
isfied to  administer  the  civil  law ;  and  on  grounds  of 

•  It  is  objected  repeatedly  by  other  writers  that  the  absence  of  the  record  of 
any  enforcement  of  a  law  is  sutficient  proof  that  no  such  law  existed.  See  Uni- 
tarian Review,  October  1880,  p.  300,  passim.  "Good  kings  did  not  remove 
idolatrous  worship,"  therefore  there  was  no  law  against  idolatry.  How  much 
these  good  kings  did  toward  ridding  the  kingdom  of  idolatry  we  do  not  know. 
That  they  did  not  wholly  succeed  is  all  that  can  be  inferred  from  the  passage 
Can  it  not  be  said  that  we  had  good  governors  who  did  not  shut  up  the  liquor- 
shops,  and  good  mayors  who  did  not  close  the  most  popular  gambling  saloons  ? 
Does  it  follow  that  there  was  no  prohibitory  law  in  Boston,  because  there  were 
more  than  two  thousand  bars  where  liquor  was  sold?  We  know  there  was. 
There  are  also  liundreds  of  vile  houses  in  Boston  which  the  good  mayor  has 
not  shut  up.  Is  there  no  law  against  them?  Such  reasoning  would  not  be  tol- 
erated in  the  lowest  form  of  a  grammar  school. 


KUENEN'S   religion   of   ISRAEL.  25 

expediency,  or  supposing,  by  some  method  of  inter- 
pretation of  their  own,  that  idol-worship  was  consistent 
with  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  they  not  only  permitted 
but  encouraged  it,  as  the  popes  encouraged  image- 
worship  and  the  selling  of  indulgences.  The  nation 
had  departed  no  further  from  the  requirements  of  the 
Mosaic  law  —  assuming  that  it  was  given  as  early  as 
his  time  —  than  the  Church  of  the  sixth  to  the  tenth 
centuries  had  departed  from  the  teachings  of  Christ. 
But  customs  are  not  easily  changed ;  and,  though  Hez- 
ekiah  appears  to  have  been  in  earnest,  he  could  not 
eradicate  the  religious  rites  and  opinions  which  had 
been  cherished  and  firmly  rooted  with  increasing  vigor 
for  more  than  three  generations.  He  did  his  best  to 
purify  their  worship  ;  but,  when  he  died,  reaction  came, 
and  a  return  to  the  long  established  and  cherished 
customs.  For  two  generations,  or  during  the  long 
reign  of  Manasseh,  of  fifty-five  years,  and  the  brief 
reign  of  Amon,  of  two  years,  idolatry  was  practised  in 
its  worst  forms.  The  restraint  under  Hezekiah  gave 
way  to  unbridled  license  under  Manasseh,  as  the  re- 
straint of  the  Commonwealth  gave  way  to  the  license 
of  Charles  II.  and  James  II.  He  not  only  re-erected 
the  "  high  places,"  but  he  "  built  altars  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord,  .  .  .  and  he  built  altars  for  all  the  hosts  of 
heaven,  in  the  two  courts  of  the  house  of  the  Lord. 
And  he  made  his  son  pass  through  fire,  and  observed 
times  and  used  enchantments  and  dealt  with  familiar 
spirits  and  wizards."  He  set  one  of  the  abominable 
"graven  images  of  the  grove,"  as  our  translation  names 
it  to  conceal  its  obscenity,  "  in  the  house  of  the  Lord," 
in  the  very  temple  itself, —  a  baseness  of  profanation 


26  INTRODUCTORY. 

of  which  even  Athaliah  did  not  dream  or  Ahaz  at- 
tempt. They  appear  to  have  reverently  closed  the 
temple  doors,  and  to  have  erected  their  idols  only  in 
the  courts.  Nor  is  this  all.  "  Moreover,  Manasseh 
shed  innocent  blood  very  much,  till  he  had  filled  Jeru- 
salem, from  one  end  to  the  other."  What  horrors  of 
martyrdom  the  reformers  under  Hezekiah  suffered, 
these  few  words  but  dimly  hint.  The  true  prophets 
fled  and  concealed  themselves,  or  were  slaughtered. 
The  true  priests  escaped  as  they  could,  and  suffered 
all  extremities,  even  to  perishing  with  hunger.  The 
reaction  and  persecution  under  Mary  Tudor  were  not 
greater  or  bloodier  or  more  merciless  than  those  under 
Manasseh.  And  this  prevalence  of  idolatry  continued 
for  seventy-five  years,  till  Josiah  again  attempted  a 
reform ;  and  this  persecution  of  Hezekiah's  reformers 
continued  till  the  last  voice  was  silenced  and  the  last 
hand  cold. 

Nothing  in  Dr.  Kuenen's  work  has  so  awakened  our 
regret,  not  to  say  our  indignation  in  this  instance,  as 
his  attempt  to  palliate  the  abominations  and  atrocities 
of  Manasseh,  saying  that  he  "  represented  a  convic- 
tion "  as  well  as  Hezekiah.  The  "  account  [of  his  cru- 
elties] is  unworthy  of  credit,"  affirms  Dr.  Kuenen. 
He  only  did  what  his  grandfather  Ahaz  did  in  setting 
up  idols,  and  causing  his  son  to  pass  through  fire ! 
"  Free  from  all  exclusivism,  Manasseh  cannot  well 
have  become  a  persecutor  of  his  own  accord.  If  he 
took  this  part  upon  him,  he  was  driven  to  it  by  the 
reception  accorded  to  his  measures ! "  No  doubt. 
Mary  Tudor's  measures  were  not  accepted;  and,  lo, 
the  stake,  the  rack,  the  red-hot  iron !     Isabella's  meas- 


KUENEN'S   religion   of   ISRAEL.  27 

ures  were  not  received ;  and,  lo,  the  horrors  of  the 
Inquisition  !  We  have  read  apologies  for  Judas  Iscar- 
iot  with  considerable  patience  ;  for  the  poor  fellow 
saw  his  guilt  and  shame,  and  hung  himself.  But  we 
have  no  hint  that  Manasseh  ever  relented  in  his  work 
of  blood,  or  was  abashed  in  the  presence  of  his 
"  groves,"  or  "  asheras."  He  persecuted  as  long  as 
a  hunted  victim  could  be  found.  He  practised  his 
licentious  rites  as  long  as  subjects  for  their  lustful 
orgies  could  be  furnished.  He  stands  eminent  among 
the  Anakims  of  cruelty,  though  he  had  "  a  conviction," 
as  Mary  Tudor  had,  as  James  II.  had,  as  Torquemada 
had, —  "  a  conviction  "  /  Heaven  help  us  to  escape 
"convictions  "  ! 

We  now  turn  to  consider  the  origin,  character,  and 
extent  of  the  reform  under  Josiah.  For  personal  rea- 
sons, probably,  Amon,  the  son  of  Manasseh,  after  a 
brief  reign  of  two  years,  was  assassinated  by  his  ser- 
vants in  his  own  house.  The  people  punished  the  assas- 
sins, and  placed  his  son  Josiah,  only  eight  years  of 
age,  on  the  throne.  Under  influences  which  are  not 
named,  his  counsellors  appear  to  have  administered 
civil  affairs  wisely,  without  interfering  with  the  forms 
of  religion,  till,  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his  reign, 
while  the  temple  was  undergoing  repairs,  Hilkiah,  the 
high-priest,  informs  Shaphan,  the  scribe,  that  he  had 
'■'■found  the  book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of  the  Lord." 
It  was  read  before  the  King,  and  he  was  so  moved  in 
view  of  the  sins  of  the  people,  as  revealed  by  this 
"book  of  the  law,"  that  "he  rent  his  clothes,"  and 
directed  that  measures  should  be  taken  at  once  to 
obey  "the  book  of  the  law."     He  gathered  the  elders 


28  INTRODUCTORY. 

of  the  people,  and  "  the  book  "  was  read  in  their  hear- 
ing, even  "  all  the  words  of  the  book  of  the  covenant." 
Then  the  King  and  the  people  "  made  a  covenant 
before  the  Lord  to  walk  after  the  Lord,  and  to  keep 
his  commandments  and  his  testimonies  and  his  stat- 
utes with  all  their  heart  and  all  their  soul,  and  to  per- 
form the  words  of  this  covenant  that  were  written  in 
this  book."  The  work  commences  of  conforming  to 
the  law  as  recorded  in  this  book.  "  The  high-priest 
and  priests  of  the  second  order "  bring  out  of  the 
temple  all  the  vessels  of  Baal,  and  the  shameful  ashera, 
"grove,"  burn  them,  and  carry  the  ashes  to  Bethel. 
He  displaced  the  "  idolatrous  priests  who  burned  in- 
cense in  the  high  places  unto  Baal,  to  the  sun  and  to  the 
moon  and  to  the  planets  and  to  all  the  host  of  heaven. 
He  brake  down  the  houses  of  the  Sodomites,  that  were 
by  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  defiled  the  high  places 
and  Topheth."  He  burned  to  ashes  all  that  would 
burn,  and  ground  to  powder  all  that  could  be  pulver- 
ized, of  the  articles  used  in  idol-worship ;  and,  having 
cleansed  the  land  of  idolatry,  he  commanded  the  pass- 
over  to  be  kept  as  directed  "  in  the  book  of  this  cove- 
nant." But  it  was  too  late.  Josiah  was  killed  in  a 
battle  with  Pharaoh-Nechoh ;  and  under  his  sons  the 
nation  again  relapsed  into  idolatry,  and  Jerusalem  was 
taken,  and  the  captivity  followed. 

Now,  what  was  this  '■''book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord''' 
vv'hich  aroused  Josiah  to  attempt  a  radical  reform  in 
the  religious  practices  of  the  nation  ?  Dr.  Kuenen 
says :  "  Moses  bequeathed  no  book  of  the  law  to  the 
tribes  of  Israel.  Certainly,  nothing  more  was  com- 
mitted to  writing  by  him,  or  in  his  time,  than  *  the  ten 


KUENEN  S   RELIGION   OF    ISRAEL.  29 

words,' "  the  ten  commandments,  "  in  their  original 
form."  How,  we  ask  with  significant  emphasis,  how 
does  Dr.  Kuenen  know  that  Moses  wrote  these  "  ten 
words  "  .''  or  that  they  were  written  as  early  as  his  day  ? 
Where  is  the  proof  of  it?  None  is  given, —  not  a  line, 
not  a  letter.  The  testimony  of  the  "inner  conscious- 
ness "  cannot  be  taken  in  this  case;  and  we  challenge 
him  to  bring  any  proof  that  Moses  wrote  "  the  ten 
words  "  which  will  not  also  prove  that  he  wrote  a  great 
many  words.*  Dr.  Kuenen  says  that  the  fragmentary 
laws  in  existence  before  Josiah's  time  would  not  satisfy 
what  he  calls  the  "Mosaic  part}^," — that  is,  the  anti- 
idolatrous  portion  of  the  people, —  and  some  one  or 
more  of  them,  Hilkiah  or  others,  forged  "  a  book  of 
the  law  of  the  Lord,"  in  the  name  of  the  old  law- 
giver. "  Notions  about  literary  property  were  then  in 
their  infancy."  They  would  have  no  "qualms  of  con- 
science "  who  declared  they  had  "  found  "  a  book  when 
they  did  not  find  it,  but  wrote  it ;  nor  when  they  attrib- 
uted its  authorship  to  Moses,  though  they  knew  they 
lied !  The  Mosaic  party  must  gain  their  end  at  all 
hazards.  "  Now  or  never," —  hence  forgery  and  lying 
are  justifiable.  That  forgery  —  as  unblushing  and  more 
criminal  than  the  forged  election  returns  in  Louisiana, 

*A  writer  in  the  Uttitarian  Review,  November,  1880,  pp.  435,  436,  says  the 
fen  commandments,  as  written  on  the  tablets  of  stone,  are  not  given  in  the 
second  writing,  Exodi.s  xxxiv. ,  as  in  the  first,  Exodus  xx.  The  historian  says 
they  were.  Compare  Exodus  xxxiv.,  i,  and  xxxiv.,  27,  28.  The  writer  mistakes 
when  he  understands  that  the  laws  given  in  this  chapter  were  written  on  the  two 
tables.  They  were  written  as  the  other  laws  were.  Moses  was  commanded  to 
write  these  words  or  commands  because  they  were  '^  af/er  ike  ^f«<?r,"  based 
upnn  the  words  or  commands  given  be/ore.  There  were  not  ten  of  them,  no 
more,  no  less ;  but  a  code  of  rules  based  upon  the  ten  laws  or  commandments, 
which  were  written  on  the  tables,  and  not  here  repeated.  They  are  not  said  to 
be  the  words  of  the  covenant,  but  "after  iJu  tenor"  based  upon  them. 


3©  INTRODUCTORY. 

or  the  Decretals  — was  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy ;  not 
the  whole  of  it,  but  Deuteronomy  iv.,  44  —  xxvi.  and 
xxviii.  These  chapters,  no  more,  no  less,  were  delib- 
erately forged  for  a  religious  purpose  at  this  time. 
Now,  what  is  the  proof  of  it?  Let  us  pick  up  as  we 
may  the  alleged  evidence  produced  by  Dr.  Kuenen. 

1.  "  The  first  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  more 
recent  than  the  seventh  century  before  our  era  " ;  and 
therefore  they  cannot  be,  either  one  or  all  of  them,  the 
book  "  found "  or  forged,  the  latter,  not  the  former, 
in  Josiah's  reign.  But  this  is  simply  taking  for  granted 
what  must  be  proved.  No  evidence,  not  a  line,  has 
yet  been  brought  by  Dr.  Kuenen  to  show  that  the  first 
four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  were  not  written  till  after 
this  period,  save  that  laws  contained  in  it  were  often 
violated,  and  sometimes  with  impunity. 

2.  "Let  it  be  further  remembered  that  the  writing 
found  by  Hilkiah  is  called  the  '■book  of  the  law,^  and 
the  '  book  of  the  covetiant.^  "  It  is  true  that  in  Deuter- 
onomy iv.,  44,  we  read,  "And  this  is  the  law  which 
Moses  set  before  the  children  of  Israel.  These  are 
the  testimonies  and  statutes  and  judgments  which 
Moses  spake  unto  the  children  of  Israel."  And  in 
chapter  v.,  2,  3,  it  is  said  that  "  the  Lord  our  God  made 
a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb."  But  in  no  place  is 
Deuteronomy  called  "  the  book  of  the  law,"  or  "  the 
book  of  the  covenant."  But  we  read  in  Exodus  xxiv., 
7,  that  Moses  took  the  book  of  the  covenant,  and  read  in 
the  audience  of  the  people  ;  and  numerous  sections  of 
the  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  called  "  the 
law."  The  inference  drawn  by  Dr.  Kuenen,  from  the 
possible  meaning  of  the  phrases  "  the  law  "  and  "  the 


KUENEN  S    RELIGION   OK    ISRAEL.  3 1 

covenant,"  as  used  in  Deuteronomy,  is  theiefore  not 
valid,  and  is  far  from  proving  that  only  the  last  book  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  referred  to,  excluding  the  others. 

3.  "  It  cannot  have  been  of  any  great  length,  if  we 
may  believe  the  statement  that  it  was  read  by  Shaphan, 
and  then  read  before  Josiah  in  one  day."  This  would 
be  true  of  any  of  the  sections  named  ''■the  law"  and 
"the  covenant,"  which  are  contained  in  any  of  the 
books.  These  important  sections  might  all  be  read 
more  easily  than  twenty-three  chapters  in  Deuteronomy. 
The  only  possible  objection  to  this  view  is  found  in 
one  word  in  the  history  of  this  transaction,  II.  Kings 
xxiii.,  2  :  "And  he  read  in  their  ears  all  the  words  of 
the  book  of  the  covenant," — as  if  the  whole  of  the 
book,  whatever  the  topic,  was  read.  There  are  large 
sections  of  Deuteronomy  which  have  no  special  rela- 
tion to  the  reforms  instituted  by  Josiah  ;  and  laws  re- 
specting all  his  reforms  are  found  in  other  portions  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Certainly,  Dr.  Kuenen  will  not  rest 
the  proof  that  "  the  book  of  the  law'"  read  before  Josiah 
was  our  present  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  on  the  single 
use  of  the  word  "  all  "  by  a  historian  who  is  not  known, 
and  who  belongs  to  a  class  of  writers  who  are  said 
by  himself  "  to  consider  themselves  exempt  from  all 
responsibility"  to  write  the  truth.  We  however  believe 
this  writer  was  honest,  and  intended  to  tell  the  truth, 
and  did  tell  it ;  and  that  what  he  said  is  that  "  all  " 
was  read  which  pertained  to  the  Being  whom  they  wor- 
shipped, and  the  place  and  form  of  worship  then  nec- 
essary to  be  known,  and  the  penalties  which  would 
follow  disregard  of  this  law. 

4.  The  final  reason  given  by  Dr.  Kuenen  for  believ- 


32  INTRODUCTORY. 

ing  that  Deuteronomy  is  "  the  book  of  the  law  "  found, 
forged,  by  Hilkiah  is  that  the  customs  reformed  are 
all  rebuked  in  Deuteronomy,  and  the  penalties  threat- 
ened for  transgression  are  there  written.  But  all  these 
threatenings  and  all  these  laws  are  also  contained  in 
other  books  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  not  necessary, 
therefore,  to  infer  that  the  reading  would  be  confined 
to  the  last  of  the  five  books.  Hilkiah  or  Shaphan  may 
have  made  selections  from  any  part  of  "  the  book  of 
the  law"  which  were  appropriate  to  the  occasion. 
What  book  this  was  which  Hilkiah  "  found "  or 
forged  must  be  determined  in  a  very  different  manner 
from  that  which  Dr.  Kuenen  has  adopted.  In  the 
proper  place,  we  shall  give  it  the  consideration  which  it 
demands. 

The  seventh  chapter  on  "The  Israelitish  Exiles  in 
Babylon  "  contains  so  little  which  bears  upon  the  ques- 
tion which  we  are  discussing  that  we  shall  pass  it  by 
with  the  single  remark  that  it  is  very  full  and  able, 
giving  a  correct  view  of  the  condition  of  the  exiles, 
and  the  influences  of  the  peoples  among  whom  they 
dwelt  upon  their  religious  ideas  and  forms. 

The  eighth  chapter,  which  describes  the  return  from 
the  captivity  and  "The  Establishment  of  the  Hie- 
rarchy and  the  Introduction  of  the  Law,"  demands 
special  attention ;  for  we  are  here  told  of  the  origin  of 
the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  especially  of  the  com- 
position and  introduction  of  the  ritual  law.  As  the 
subject  is  a  large  one,  and  our  space  is  limited,  we 
must  confine  ourselves  to  those  points  which  have 
direct  reference  to  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  historical  books. 


KUENEN  S    RELIGION    OF    ISRAEL,  33 

Dr.  Kuenen  affirms  in  the  strongest  language  *  that 
"  the  priestly  laws "  and  "  priestly  ordinances  were 
made  known  and  imposed  upon  the  Jewish  nation  now 
for  the  first  time,'"  by  Ezra,  457  B.C.  "They  were  not 
laws  which  had  been  long  in  existence,  and  which  were 
now  proclaimed  afresh  and  accepted  by  the  people, 
after  having  been  forgotten  for  a  while.  JVo  writte?i 
rituallegislatiofi  existed  in  EzekieVs  time."  f  During  the 
first  thirteen  years  after  Ezra's  return,  he  perfected  the 
code  which  he  had  brought  with  him  from  Babylon, 
where  he  and  others  drew  it  tip.  It  received  some  modi- 
fications at  the  hand  of  Nehemiah,  and  perhaps  others ; 
and  this  code  of  lavv's  was  palmed  off  upon  the  returned 
exiles  as  ^' God's  law  which  was  given  by  ['the  hand  of] 
Moses,  the  servant  of  God"  and  which  they  bound  them- 
selves by  a  solemn  oath,  under  a  curse,  to  obey  (Ne- 
hemiah X.,  29).  No  priest  discovered  the  fraud ;  no 
scribe,  versed  in  the  traditions,  customs,  and  laws  of 
the  nation,  had  a  suspicion  that  this  formidable,  exact- 
ing, and  onerous  code  was  a  barefaced  forgery,  a  pro- 
digious fraud ;  or  else  they  were  all  silent  in  the  very 
face  of  an  imposition  upon  the  credulity  of  a  long- 
suffering  nation,  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  the 

*Vol  II.,  p.  230. 

t  Dr.  Kuenen  maintains  that  Leviticus  xviii.-xxvi.  was  written  by  Ezckiel. 
There  is  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  of  it.  The  peculiar  archaisms  which  are 
characteristic  of  the  rest  of  the  book  and  of  all  the  Pentateuch  are  found  in 
this  section,  which  are  not  found  in  the  extant  writings  of  Ezekiel,  nor  in  any 
oiher  writing  of  the  Old  Testament  subsequent  to  that  of  the  Pentateuch.  He 
must  have  taken  great  pains  to  imitate  the  style  of  the  ancient  books  to  conceal 
this  fraud,  or  some  scribe  must  have  tampered  with  his  copy  to  {,ive  it  the 
antique  form ;  and,  further,  he  must  have  taken  great  pains  in  his  extant  proph- 
ecy to  refer  to  this  section  as  containing  the  laws  given  to  the  "  fathers,"  and 
referring  to  this  forged  section  as  if  given  in  ancient  times  in  the  "wilderness" 
(chapter  xx.,  passim),  when  he  knew  that  he  wrote  it  himself. 


34  INTRODUCTORY. 

world.  The  stupidity  of  these  people  must  have  been 
as  amazing,  as  incredible,  as  was  the  fraud.  There 
were  men  and  women  among  these  exiles  who  were  not 
idiots,  and  who  knew  whether  Ezra  was  introducing  a 
ritual  and  law  which  were  new,  and  not  in  accordance 
with  the  "  customs  "  of  the  nation  before  the  captivity. 
There  were  thousands  of  those  who  returned  with  Ze- 
rubbabel  from  the  Babylonian  exile,  whose  fathers  had 
worshipped  in  the  temple  which  Solomon  built,  and 
who  were  familiar  with  the  whole  ritual  code.  Could 
their  children  be  blinded  to  such  a  degree  as  not  to 
know  a  new  code  so  minute  in  its  details,  reaching 
even  to  the  kind  and  cooking  of  their  food  j  the  ma- 
terial, form,  and  make  of  their  garments ;  the  construc- 
tion and  care  of  their  houses ;  the  number,  amount, 
and  payment  of  their  taxes ;  the  rate  of  interest  and 
collection  of  debts  ;  the  manner  of  treating  strangers 
and  slaves;  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the 
penalty  of  its  desecration  ?  And  these  are  but  a  few  of 
the  laws  which  touched  their  persons,  their  homes,  and 
daily  occupations.  The  bare  statement  of  an  hypoth- 
esis which  demanded  such  a  belief  would  seem  to  be 
its  sufficient  and  swift  confutation.  Imagine  all  the 
men  and  women  and  children  of  those  exiles  who  had 
refused  to  sing  the  songs  of  their  dear  native  land  by 
the  rivers  of  Babylon,  and  who  had  mourned  over  the 
loss  of  their  homes,  their  temple,  and  their  worship, 
when  they  had  returned  to  erect  anew  their  altar,  and 
kindle  anew  its  fires,  to  have  had  presented  for  their 
acceptance  such  a  ritual  as  they  had  never  heard  of  j 
such  a  religious  administration  as  never  before  existed 
in  the  nation  j  and  yet  not  a  priest,  not  a  Levite,  not  a 


KUENEN  S    RELIGION    OF    ISRAEL.  35 

scribe,  not  a  prophet,  not  a  prophetess,  ever  hinted  by 
word  or  line  that  this  ritual,  this  code,  was  new ;  was 
not  the  ritual  and  code  of  the  fathers ;  was  not  the 
manner  of  administration  and  form  of  worship  which 
prevailed  in  the  land  before  Jerusalem  was  destroyed 
and  Judah  carried  captive  !  The  great  company  which 
returned  with  Zerubbabel  had  built  their  homes,  and 
established  anew  the  worship  of  their  nation  in  the 
rebuilt  temple,  and  according  to  the  "customs"  of  the 
fathers.  For  over  half  a  century,  for  fifty-eight  years, 
after  the  dedication  of  their  new  temple,  "  the  priests 
in  their  divisions,  and  the  Levites  in  their  courses," 
had  conducted  the  services  of  the  temple,  "as  it  is 
written  in  the  book  of  Afoscs^\-  and  twenty  years  before 
the  temple  was  finished,  on  their  arrival  at  Jerusalem, 
Jeshua  and  the  priests  and  others  "  builded  an  altar  to 
the  God  of  Israel  to  offer  burnt  offerings  thereon,  as  it 
is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God T  They 
kept  the  feast  of  the  tabernacle,  "  as  //  is  written,'^  and 
"  offered  the  daily  burnt  offerings  by  number,  according 
to  the  custom."  They  also  observed  the  "  new  moons, 
and  all  the  set  feasts  of  the  Lord."  This  large  com- 
pany, with  the  "high  priests"  and  the  "priests"  and 
"Levites"  and  "singing  men"  and  "singing  women" 
and  the  "porters  "  with  "  the  vessels  of  gold  and  of  sil- 
ver," and  "priests'  garments  "  and  "knives,"  had  been 
keeping  "passovers"  and  "all  the  feasts,"  and  wor- 
shipping according  to  the  "custom  "  of  the  fathers,  "as 
written  in  the  book  of  Moses,"  "  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
the  man  of  God,"  during  two  generations,  in  the  un- 
doubting  belief  that  they  were  honoring  God  and  obey- 
ing his  law  given  to  their  fathers.     And  yet  not  a  word 


36  INTRODUCTORY. 

of  astonishment  or  objection  is  spoken,  no  contention 
arises  between  these  people  and  the  company  of  Ezra 
when  they  return  and  he  introduces  his  ritual  and 
code  which  were  '■^  never  before  heard  of ,^^  and  "  xxovi  for 
the  first  time  imposed  upon  the  Jewish  nation  "  !  Every 
tongue  is  dumb,  every  pen  is  idle;  and  this  unparal- 
leled monstrous  forgery  is  accepted  without  a  word  of 
challenge,  a  shadow  of  suspicion,  by  a  people  which 
could  boast  of  such  writers  as  Amos,  Isaiah,  Micah, 
Jeremiah,  Hosea,  Joel,  and  the  Psalmist !  If  so,  the 
miracles  of  Egypt,  as  well  as  those  recorded  in  the 
Book  of  the  Judges,  become  mere  commonplace  affairs 
in  the  history  of  Israel. 

Monstrously  incredible  as  this  hypothesis  is,  Dr. 
Kuenen  has  his  reasons  for  adopting  it.  What  are 
they  ?  It  is  our  duty,  as  reviewer  of  his  work,  to  state 
and  examine  them.  In  doing  this,  we  shall  be  obliged 
to  adopt  an  order  of  our  own,  since  Dr.  Kuenen's  rea- 
sons are  spread  over  the  whole  work,  and  are  inter- 
woven with  his  whole  argument,  and  arc  nowhere  so 
arranged  in  separate  paragraphs  and  distinctly  an- 
nounced as  to  make  verbal  quotations  easy.  We  will, 
however,  strive  to  cover  his  whole  ground  with  the 
reasons  which  we  shall  name.  It  will  be  impossible  to 
refer  to  the  page  on  which  the  reasons  which  we  shall 
state  may  be  found,  since  they  are  implied  or  hinted  or 
assumed  through  whole  chapters,  without  a  brief  and 
clear  enunciation.  We  omit,  in  this  connection,  as  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  consider  it  hereafter,  the  differ- 
ence in  the  style  of  the  author  or  authors  of  the  Penta- 
teuch and  that  of  Ezra  and  the  v/riters  of  his  time, 
which  is  to  us  most  conclusive  evidence  that  the  Jewish 


KUENEN  S   RELIGION   OF   ISRAEL.  37 

ritual  was  not  the  work  of  any  writer  who  lived  after 
the  captivity.* 

The  first  reason  which  we  will  notice  offered  in 
support  of  Dr.  Kuenen's  theory  is  that  7io  mention  is 
made  of  any  such  work  as  the  Pentateuch,  or  any  such 
ritual  as  it  contains,  in  any  work  written  before  the 
captivity.  The  value  of  this  reason  will  depend  upon 
the  number  and  character  of  the  works  thus  early 
written.  If  very  few  works  were  written,  and  they 
were  lyrical  like  the  Psalms,  or  didactic  like  the  Prov- 
erbs, or  hortatory  like  many  of  the  prophets,  we  should 
not  expect  to  find  formal  quotations  from  the  Penta- 
teuch, assuming  its  early  existence,  any  more  than  we 
should  expect  to  find  formal  quotations  from  the  Gos- 
pels in  our  Christian  hymn-books,  or  in  such  sermons 
as  Channing's  and  Robertson's  and  Bartol's  and  Mar- 
tineau's.  All  that  could  be  expected  in  such  writings 
would  be  an  occasional  allusion,  a  particular  expression, 
a  special  phraseology,  which  would  indicate  that  the 
writers  of  these  lyric  and  didactic  and  prophetic  books 
were  familiar  with  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch,  as 
the  sermons  of  these  preachers  and  the  hymns  of  these 
poets  show  that  they  are  familiar  with  the  contents  of 
the  Gospels.  Whether  we  do  find  any  such  indications 
of  familiarity  with  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch  in 
tlie  writers  before  the  captivity  will  be  determined  sub- 
sequently in  its  proper  place. f 

But  we  are  by  no  means  willing  to  confine  the  testi- 
mony to  the  early  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  to  works 
written  before  the  captivity.     What  sound   reason  can 

*  See  "  Study  of  the  Pentateuch,"  ui.der  "  Stylc^'  page  iS9  of  this  volume. 
tSce   "Study  of  the   Pentateuch,"   under   '^ Quotations, "    page  104  of  this 
voluinc. 


38  INTRODUCTORY, 

be  given  for  not  accepting  the  testimony  of  those  who 
wrote  after  the  captivity  to  events  transpiring  and  cus- 
toms prevalent  before  it,  if  they  have  good  authority 
for  what  they  say  which  disappeared  soon  after,  and 
had  in  their  hands  documents  which  have  perished? 
None  whatever.  And  here  we  must  enter  once  more 
our  most  decided  protest  against  Dr.  Kuenen's  whole- 
sale accusation  and  condemnation  of  the  Hebrew  writ- 
ers, historians,  and  others.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
they  were  shamelessly  destitute  of  veracity,  "  and  con- 
sidered themselves  exempt  from  all  responsibility  "  to 
tell  the  truth,  "and  fearlessly  allowed  themselves  to-be 
guided  in  their  statements  by  the  wants  of  the  present 
and  the  requirements  of  the  future  "  !  After  the  events 
of  the  life  of  Samuel  from  iioo  B.C.,  the  writers  of 
Jewish  history  are  exceptionally  scrupulous  to  refer  to 
their  authorities.  The  writer  of  the  Books  of  the 
Kings  specifies  at  the  close  of  every  section  where  a 
full  account  of  what  he  has  very  briefly  narrated  may 
be  found.  Bancroft  and  Palfrey  and  Parkman  are  not 
more  scrupulous  and  frank  in  informing  their  readers  of 
the  sources  of  their  information.  He  does  not  appear 
to  think  that  he  is  writing  to  a  set  of  ignoramuses  who 
could  be  duped,  nor  to  a  party  of  demagogues  who 
were  to  be  flattered  and  sustained.  Honesty  and 
scholarship  glow  on  every  page.  If  the  reader  of  the 
Books  of  the  Kings  is  impressed  with  any  one  thing 
more  deeply  than  another,  it  is  with  the  truthfulness  of 
the  writer.  Undoubtedly,  he  was  sometimes  mistaken 
in  his  interpretation  of  the  old  records  on  which  he 
relied ;  but  not  wilfully  to  gain  an  end,  but  humanly  as 
not   omniscient.     There   is   no  reason   to  distrust  his 


KUENEN's    religion   of   ISRAEL.  39 

Statements  respecting  the  laws,  customs,  and  religion 
of  the  Jews,  if  he  did  write  four  or  five  hundred  years 
after  the  reign  of  David,  and  closed  his  history  with 
the  fall  of  Jerusalem  and  the  captivity  of  Judah;  and 
we  shall  use  his  work  freely  and  confidently  when  we 
have  occasion  to  do  so  in  this  discussion. 

We  turn  now  to  a  consideration  of  the  accuracy  and 
value  of  the  narratives  in  the  Books  of  the  Chronicles. 
These  books  are  made  the  subject  of  the  severest 
criticism  by  Dr.  Kuenen.  He  accuses  the  writer  of 
them  of  very  slight  regard  for  truth ;  of  so  coloring 
facts,  and  of  inventing  them  when  there  are  none,  as 
to  sustain  the  priestly  ritual  and  code  forged  in  the 
name  of  Moses  by  Ezra.  Indeed,  Dr.  Kuenen  may 
be  said  to  believe  and  maintain  that  the  Books  of  the 
Chronicles  are  substantially  historical  forgeries  com- 
posed to  give  color  of  truth  to  the  ritual  forgeries  of 
Ezra.  The  priests  have  invented  a  religion  and  forged 
a  history  to  prove  it  true.*  This  all  took  place,  and 
no  scribe  of  the  age,  not  a  man  of  all  the  writers  of 
the  age,  detected  the  cheat  or  exposed  the  falsifier 
of  his  nation's  history.  Mark  the  point.  The  writer 
of  the  Books  of  the  Chronicles  is  not  a  blunderer,  an 
ignorant  pretender,  an  unfortunate  bankrupt  in  author- 
ities :  he  is  an  intelligent,  deliberate,  persistent,  and 
determined  falsifier  of  the  annals  of  his  nation  which 
were  in  his  hands  ;  for  this  writer  appeals  as  constantly 
to  his  authorities  for  his  statements  as  does  the  writer 
of  the  Books  of  the  Kings.  Why,  then,  should  Dr. 
Kuenen  assume  that  where  these  historians,  or  rather 
annalists,  differ,  the  writer  of  the  Chronicles  perverts 

*  Vol.  III.,  p.  70  ei  seq. 


4©  INTRODUCTORY. 

or  inverts  or  invents  his  facts  ?  Why  is  it  impossible 
that  the  writer  of  the  Kings  may  be  mistaken  ?  Simply 
because  it  would  spoil  the  whole  of  Dr  Kuenen's 
theory;  for  it  is  past  all  possible  question  that  the 
priesthood  and  the  ritual  are  as  old  as  the  time  of 
David,  if  the  narratives  in  the  Chronicles  are  substan- 
tially true.  But  Carthago  delenda  est.  The  early,  es- 
pecially the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  priesthood  and  ritual 
must  be  false  :  therefore,  every  historian  asserting  its 
antiquity  is  thereby  shown  to  be  a  liar  or  an  ignoramus ! 
That  the  writer  of  the  Chronicles  is  an  antiquarian, 
and  often  busies  himself  about  very  small  matters,  is 
true.  That  he  is  given  to  genealogies  is  also  true. 
That  he  writes  an  ecclesiastical  and  not  a  civil  history 
is  also  true.  But  this  does  not  prove  that  he  delib- 
erately lied,  and  said  that  things  were  as  he  knew  they 
were  not.  Neal's  History  of  the  Puritans  differs  as 
much  from  Hume's  history  of  the  same  period  as  the 
Chronicles  differ  from  the  Kings ;  and  yet  Neal  is  as 
reliable  an  historian  as  Hume.  He  dwells  upon  other 
topics  and  enlarges  upon  them,  and  is  very  diffuse  upon 
some  points  which  Hume  omits  or  only  touches.  So  we 
find  it  in  the  Chronicles.  The  writer  lingers  lovingly 
around  topics  which  the  writer  of  the  Kings  passes 
over  very  lightly  or  wholly  omits,  and  sometimes  they 
contradict  each  other.  But  this  is  no  proof  that  either 
of  ihem  was  a  liar.  Their  authorities  may  have  dif- 
fered. The  figures  given  in  the  Chronicles  and  in  the 
other  books  are  obviously  unreliable,  for  some  reason 
which  is  not  yet  explained.  TJae  blunders  of  copyists 
do  not  satisfactorily  account  for  all  of  them.  But 
these  obvious  mistakes  do  not  affect  in  the  slightest 


KUENEn's    religion   of   ISRAEL.  4! 

degree  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  statements  respect- 
ing the  reUgious  usages  and  legal  ceremonies  of  the 
period  of  which  the  work  is  a  fragmentary  history, — 
indeed,  only  the  briefest  annals.  The  fact  of  a  battle 
having  been  fought  is  not  discredited  because  the 
number  of  killed  and  wounded  is  incorrect,  and  the 
name  of  the  commander  and  the  day  of  the  fight  are 
obviously  misstated.  Genealogies  may  be  erroneous, 
and  yet  the  events  recorded  may  be  substantially  cor- 
rect. It  would  be  a  miracle,  indeed,  if  the  writer  of 
the  Chronicles  had  made  no  mistakes  in  the  names 
of  his  long  lists  of  ancient  families  ;  and  a  still  greater 
one  if  the  copyists  of  them  for  centuries  had  accu- 
rately, letter  for  letter,  reproduced  the  original.  We 
have  tried  our  hand  at  both,  and  do  not  wish  to  con- 
demn ourselves  by  accusing  the  writer  of  the  Chron- 
icles of  being  either  an  idiot  or  a  knave  because  of  the 
mistakes  which  are  found  in  his  work.  There  is  open 
before  me,  as  I  write,  the  first  volume  of  Savage's  Gene- 
alogy of  New  England,  a  "  very  miracle  of  accuracy," 
and  yet  there  are  twc?ity  octavo  pages  of  "additions  and 
corrections  "  at  the  end  of  it.  How  critics  of  the  school 
of  Dr.  Kuenen  would  revel  in  a  volume  like  this ! 

After  the  most  patient  and  long  examination  of  these 
books,  we  find  nothing  which  proves  or  even  indicates 
that  their  writer  falsified  his  documents  and  invented 
incidents.  As  far  as  he  writes  the  history  of  his  nation, 
he  writes  as  a  priest  would  naturally  write  —  relig- 
iously. He  describes  the  acts  of  the  priesthood  much 
more  fully  than  those  of  the  civil  magistrates.  He 
does  not  bring  his  history  down  further  than  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem.     The  books  close  with  the  issue 


42  INTRODUCTORY. 

of  the  decree  by  Cyrus  for  the  return  of  the  captives, 
536  B.C.  The  writer  probably  composed  his  work 
after  the  return  of  Nehemiah,  and  compiled  from  docu- 
ments the  so-called  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  as  a 
fitting  appendix  to  his  own  work.  We  submit  that 
there  is  no  valid  reason  for  supposing,  with  Dr.  Kuenen 
and  others,  that  the  Books  of  Chronicles  were  not  writ- 
ten as  early  as  we  have  stated,  simply  because  two  gen- 
ealogies of  a  few  names  are  carried  down  to  250  B.C. 
These  names  might  well  have  been  added  by  a  later 
hand.  It  may  be  assumed,  therefore,  with  large  meas- 
ure of  assurance,  that  all  the  historical  books  included 
in  our  Bible,  as  we  now  have  them,  were  composed 
before  400  B.C.,  and  that  they  are  substantially  reliable 
in  their  account  of  the  affairs  of  the  nation,  both  civil 
and  ecclesiastical ;  that  there  is  no  evidence  which 
would  be  admitted  for  a  moment  in  any  court  of  jus- 
tice that  these  writers  were  arrant  knaves,  forging  laws 
and  falsifying  history ;  that  an  indictment  based  upon 
such  evidence  as  is  adduced  against  the  integrity  and 
ability  of  these  writers  would  be  quashed  by  any  mod- 
ern court,  or  a  nol.  pros,  would  be  entered  by  any  pros- 
ecuting attorney, 

A  word  must  be  said  respecting  the  writings  which 
treat  of  the  affairs  of  the  nation  from  the  time  of 
Moses  to  that  of  David,  a  period,  according  to  Dr. 
Kuenen,  of  about  three  hundred  years  in  round  num- 
bers,— 1300 — 1000  B.C.  The  Book  of  Joshua  gives 
an  account  of  the  conquest  and  division  of  the  land  of 
Canaan  among  the  tribes,  and  covers  a  period  of  about 
thirty  years.  If  we  can  rely  upon  a  statement  in  chap. 
xvi.,  10,  "The  Canaanites  dwell  among  the  Ephraimites 


KUENEN'S   religion   of   ISRAEL.  43 

[in  Gezer]  unto  this  day,"  the  book  must  have  been 
written  before  the  end  of  Solomon's  reign,  for  we  lead, 
in  I.  Kings  ix.,  16,  that  Pharaoh  took  Gezer,  burned  it 
with  fire,  slew  the  Canaanites,  and  gave  it  as  a  present 
to  his  daughter,  Solomon's  wife.  This  passage  would 
be  of  little  value  in  overcoming  opposing  evidence,  were 
there  any ;  but  there  is  none  of  any  weight.  The  fre- 
quent use  of  the  phrase  "unto  this  day"  implies  some 
time  after  the  events  described,  but  is  very  indefinite. 
This  Book  of  Joshua  may  have  been  written  as  early  as 
the  reign  of  Saul.  There  is  no  internal  evidence  against 
such  a  date  for  its  compilation.  Its  subject  is  of  the 
conquest,  the  battles,  and  the  location  of  the  tribes  upon 
their  portions  of  the  land.  No  reasonable  critic  would 
expect  to  find  much,  if  anything,  which  would  treat  of 
their  religious  manners  and  customs.  What  there  is 
said  about  them  we  shall  call  attention  to  in  the  proper 
place.*  If  there  were  no  allusion  to  anything  of  the 
kind,  it  would  not  surprise  us,  nor  should  we  draw  the 
astounding  inference  that  they  were  a  people  v.fithout 
a  religion  and  without  a  ritual. 

The  Book  of  Judges  is  a  very  composite  work  ;  but  if 
we  may  rely  upon  a  statement,  chap,  i.,  21,  that  "the 
Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Benjamin  in  Jeru- 
salem unto  this  day,"  the  book  must  have  been  written 
before  the  conclusion  of  David's  reign ;  for  we  read  in 
II.  Samuel,  v.,  6-8,  that  David  drove  the  Jebusites 
out  of  Jerusalem,  and  took  the  stronghold  of  Zion,  and 
David  dwelt  in  it.  Another  passage  in  one  of  the  ap- 
pendixes of    the  book,  chap,  xviii.,  30,  may  indicate 

•See  "Study  of  the  Pentateuch,"  under  "Quotations    from  Joshua,^'  page 
142  of  this  volume. 


44  INTRODUCTORY. 

that  this  portion  was  not  written  till  two  or  three  centu- 
ries afterward;  for  certain  persons  are  said  to  have 
served  as  priests  to  the  tribe  of  Dan  "until  the  day  of 
the  captivity  of  the  land,"  referring,  apparently,  to  the 
deportation  of  the  ten  tribes  of  Shalmaneser  and  Esar- 
haddon,  721  B.C.  As  an  apology  for  the  lawlessness 
and  insecurity  of  those  days  the  writer  of  the  appen- 
dixes especially  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  there  was 
"no  king  in  Israel  in  those  days"  (xviii.,  i,  and  else- 
where). The  book  was  possibly  written  as  illustrative 
of  the  importance  of  a  closer  union  of  the  tribes  and 
of  a  stronger  central  government,  or,  more  probably, 
it  was  the  work  of  a  curiosity  hunter,  who  gathered  the 
traditions  of  the  most  wonderful  events  which  had  hap- 
pened during  a  period  of  civil  and  foreign  wars,  if  bor- 
der ravages  and  riotous  outbreaks  can  be  called  wars, 
like  the  feuds  of  the  Scottish  clans,  or  the  fights  of 
Miles  Standish  and  Captain  Church  with  the  Indians. 
The  writer  was  an  Israelitish  Cotton  Mather,  and  his 
book  of  the  wonders  of  New  England,  T/iaumaiurgus, 
is  the  Puritan  Book  of  Judges.  No  reasonable  critic 
would  expect  to  find  much  respecting  religious  affairs  in 
such  a  work,  covering  three  or  four  centuries  in  sixteen 
chapters,  and  devoting  four  of  them  to  the  exploits  of 
Samson,  the  Israelitish  Morrissey  (we  mean  no  disre- 
spect to  either  champion :  we  make  our  apology  to  the 
shades  of  both).  Whatever  light  the  book  will  throw 
upon  the  subject  we  shall  produce  in  due  time.*  We 
have  said  enough  to  show  that  Dr.  Kuenen's  argument, 
drawn  from  the  silence  of  the  book,  is  very  weak,  if  not 
entirely  destitute  of  force. 

•See  "Study  of  the  Pentateuch,"  under  '^Quotations  from  Judges"  page 
14'  of  this  volume. 


KUENEN'S    religion    of    ISRAEL.  45 

The  historical  notices  contained  in  I.  Samuel,  preced- 
ing the  anointing  of  David,  will  require  but  a  word  of 
consideration.  They  were  probably  written  by  some 
earlier  writer  than  the  author  of  the  Books  of  the  Kings, 
and  he  may  have  continued  the  history  to  near  the  close 
of  David's  reign.  The  style  is  more  dififuse  than  that 
of  the  author  of  Kings,  and  is  freer  from  Aramaean 
or  Chaldee  words.  What  records  he  used,  if  any,  he 
does  not  inform  us ;  and  the  amount  of  credit  which 
we  give  to  his  narrative  will  depend  upon  the  probabil- 
ity of  the  events  occurring  under  the  circumstances  de- 
scribed. Very  strange  things  happen  sometimes ;  and 
this  rule,  therefore,  must  be  applied  with  great  caution 
and  modesty.  Very  little,  if  anything,  respecting  eccle- 
siastical affairs  would  be  likely  to  be  found  in  a  brief 
description  of  the  transition  of  the  people  from  a  state 
of  anarchy  and  tribal  rivalship  and  independence  to  the 
restraints  of  a  monarchy  and  the  authority  of  a  central 
government.  And  what  little  there  should  be  found 
would  be  such  imperfect  hints  or  such  dissevered  state- 
ments as  would  aid  but  little  in  forming  a  correct  opin- 
ion of  their  religious  rites  and  hierarchy.  And  if  there 
were  a  ritual  and  a  priesthood  and  an  altar  prescribed, 
it  would  be  impossible  in  such  stormy  times  to  enforce 
or  enjoy  its  observance,  "every  man  for  himself"  doing 
what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes ;  and,  as  necessity  knows 
no  law,  religious  rites  and  ceremonies  would  be  regarded 
or  disregarded  as  circumstances  compelled  or  permitted. 
If  the  appointed  altar  could  not  be  reached,  the  sacri- 
fice would  be  offered  elsewhere ;  if  the  appointed  priest 
could  not  be  found,  the  next  most  worthy  person  would 
officiate ;  if  the  day  appointed  could  not  be  observed, 


46  INTRODUCTORY. 

the  next  day  most  appropriate  would  be  chosen.  Laws 
would  not  be  enforced,  crhninals  would  escape,  crimes 
would  be  winked  at.  Whether  any  evidence  whatever 
exists  in  these  narratives  of  the  existence  of  any  ritual 
or  code  of  forms  of  worship  will  be  the  subject  of  fut- 
ure examination.*  It  certainly  would  not  disappoint  a 
student  of  history  to  find  little  or  nothing  on  the  sub- 
ject. He  certainly  would  not  decide  categorically,  as 
Dr.  Kuenen  has  done,  that  there  was  no  such  ecclesias- 
tical polity  in  existence,  because  at  this  particular  period 
of  anarchy  it  was  in  abeyance,  or  because  in  these 
scraps  of  civil  history  and  accounts  of  insurrections 
it  was  not  specially  mentioned. 

On  the  contrary,  Dr.  Kuenen  maintains  that  the  rit- 
ual contained  in  the  Pentateuch  could  not  have  been  in 
existence  during  this  period,  because  no  direct  reference 
is  made  to  it  by  these  writers,  and  because  so  much  was 
done  which  was  in  violation  of  it.  But  who  does  not  know 
that  laws  are  violated,  customs  disregarded,  rites  neg- 
lected? Who  does  not  know  that  the  Thirty-nine  Arti- 
cles of  the  Episcopal  Church  are  Calvinistic,  and  that 
its  preaching  is  largely  Arminian  ?  Was  the  ritual,  so 
to  speak,  of  the  gospel  less  ignored  by  the  Church  600 
— 1000  A.D.  than  the  ritual  of  the  Pentateuch  from 
Joshua  to  Hezekiah,  if  you  please,  six  centuries  ?  The 
inference  from  comparative  silence  and  disregard  is  not 
a  safe  nor  a  sound  one,  where  that  silence  can  be  ex- 
plained and  that  disregard  accounted  for,  as  can  easily 
and  satisfactorily  be  done  during  the  period  before  us. 
The  narratives  relate  almost  exclusively  to  civil  affairs, 

•See  "  Study  of  the  Pentateuch,"  under  "Quotations  from  Samuel,"  page 
136  of  this  volume. 


KUENEN'S   religion   of   ISRAEL.  47 

and,  for  the  most  part,  in  the  briefest  manner ;  and  the 
people  were  governed  by  passions  and  appetites  made 
greedy  and  lawless  by  centuries  of  slavery  and  suffer- 
ing in  the  midst  of  the  grossest  idolatry,  and  therefore 
spurned  the  restraints  of  law  and  the  denial  of  idol- 
worship.  A  people  cannot  be  lifted  in  an  hour  or  a  cen- 
tury from  ignorance,  brutality,  and  idolatry  to  knowl- 
edge, refinement,  and  spiritual  worship ;  and  well  may 
it  have  taken  a  millennium  of  struggle  and  failure  and 
worshipping  of  asheras  and  Baals  before  these  degraded 
slaves  could  accept  a  "spiritual  monotheism,"  and  burn 
their  asheras,  and  understand  that  even  their  own  ritual 
was  an  offence  to  God  unless  the  heart  was  pure  and 
the  hands  clean  which  observed  it.  We  will  quote,  as 
we  can,  such  authority  as  De  Wette  in  support  of  our 
position :  "  The  observance  or  non-observance  of  par- 
ticular laws,  the  appearance  or  non-appearance  of  par- 
ticular legal  institutions,  in  a  certain  period,  can  prove 
nothing,  either  for  or  against  the  existence  of  a  written 
law  book."  *  We  submit  that  the  silence  of  these  books 
respecting  the  existence  and  observance  of  the  Mosaic 
ritual,  and  the  few  accounts  of  religious  observances 
not  conforming  to  it,  are  no  valid  proof  that  it  did  not 
exist,  especially  as  against  the  later  tradition  of  the  na- 
tion. We  shall  in  due  time  show  that  perfect  silence 
does  not  pervade  these  books.  We  are  now  only  deal- 
ing with  Dr.  Kuenen's  argument. 

Respecting  the  Books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  to 
which  allusion  has  just  been  made,  a  few  words  must 
be  said ;  for  in  these  very  brief  fragments  of  the  con- 
dition of  the  Israelites  for  about  a  century,  537 — 434 

•  Parker's  De  Wette,  §  i6j,  a. 


48  INTRODUCTORY. 

B.C.,  after  their  return  from  captivity,  we  may  find 
some  evidence  of  Dr.  Kuenen's  remarkable  theory. 
He  thinks  he  does.  Let  us  examine  the  books,  and 
see  what  it  is  worth,  if  indeed  there  is  any. 

It  is  evident  that  the  best-conditioned  and  most 
religious  of  the  captives,  those  to  whom  "Jerusalem 
was  their  chief  joy,"  would  undertake  the  long  desert 
journey,  and  attempt  to  rebuild  the  city  and  temple, 
and  re-establish  the  services  of  the  fathers.  They  were 
among  the  most  intelligent  and  devoted  of  their  race, 
and  would  be  most  solicitous  to  establish  in  its  purity 
the  worship  of  the  fathers,  and  to  render  perfect  obed'- 
ence  to  those  laws  whose  violation  had  been  visited  by 
the  destruction  of  their  city  and  the  captivity  of  its 
citizens.  The  first  company  which  went  up  under  the 
lead  of  Zerubbabel  as  civil  governor  or  king,  and  of 
Jeshua  as  high-priest  and  head  of  religious  affairs, 
were  accompanied  by  all  the  servants  serving  in  the 
old  temple  worship,  and  carried  back  the  vessels  which 
Nebuchadnezzar  had  taken  from  the  temple  and  carried 
to  Babylon.  There  were  about  fifty  thousand  souls,  — 
men,  women,  and  children.  On  arriving  at  Jerusalem, 
they  immediately  erected  an  altar,  and  at  once  com- 
menced worship  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  the 
fathers,  offering  sacrifices  "  as  it  is  written  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  the  man  of  God."  They  either  had  with  them  a 
written  ritual,  or  they  knew  there  was  one  which  they 
remembered,  and  which  they  observed.  They  also 
arranged  their  singers  after  ^^  the  ordinance  of  David, 
King  of  Israel"  showing  by  this  act  also  strict  regard  to 
the  customs  of  the  fathers.  How  Dr.  Kuenen  can  say 
that  they  did  not  sing,  but  only  "hoarsely  shouted,"  can- 


KUENEN'S   religion   of   ISRAEL.  49 

not  be  reconciled  with  Ezra  iii,,  11,  which  says,  "And 
they,  the  priests  in  their  apparel  with  trumpets,  and  the 
Levites,  the  sons  of  Asaph,  with  their  cymbals,  sung  to- 
gether by  course  in  praising  and  giving  thanks  unto  the 
Lord  ;  because  he  is  good,  for  his  mercy  endureth  for- 
ever toward  Israel ";  and  so  thrilled  were  the  multitude, 
as  they  heard  again  the  old  temple  anthems,  that  they 
"  shouted  with  a  great  shout,  and  the  noise  was  heard 
afar  off."  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  but  that 
all  this  ritual  service  was  familiar  to  them,  and  that  it 
was  observed  as  it  was  "  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
and  after  the  ordinance  of  David."  Having  finished 
their  temple,  after  twenty  j^ears'  hindrance  and  hard 
labor,  it  was  dedicated  by  the  sacrifice  of  "bullocks  and 
lambs  and  he-goats ;  by  the  priests  in  their  divisions, 
and  the  Levites  in  their  courses,  for  the  service  of  God, 
.  .  .  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Moses."  They  kept 
"  the  passover  and  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread." 
They  also  "kept  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  as  it  is 
written  ;  according  to  the  custom,  daily  burnt  offerings  " 
were  offered.  There  is  not  the  slightest  hint  that  the 
temple  service  was  not  continued  for  fifty-eight  j^ears, 
till  Ezra  and  his  company  arrived,  without  intermission, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  "custom"  of  the  fathers, 
and  as  "it  was  written  in  the  book  of  Moses." 

Did  Ezra  introduce  any  change  ?  Did  he  make 
"known  and  impose  upon  the  Jewish  nation  priestly 
ordinances,  now  for  the  first  time"  commanded?  Were 
rites  now  introduced  of  which  Zerubbabel  and  Jeshua, 
the  king  and  high-priest,  and  these  devoted  exiles 
knetu  nothing,  as  Dr.  Kuenen  affirms?*     Let  us  read 

•Vol.  II.,  p.  23'. 


50  INTRODUCTORY. 

what  the  fragments  of  history  preserved  in  the  Book 
of  Ezra  tell  us  on  this  subject.  Ezra  "  was  a  ready 
scribe  in  the  law  of  Moses,  which  the  Lord  God  of  Israel 
had  given "  (Ezra  vii.,  6)  ;  and  he  was  a  priest,  great- 
grandson  of  Hilkiah,  who  found  the  "book  of  the  law" 
in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  if  the  genealogy  is  correct ;  and 
"  Ezra  had  prepared  his  heart  to  seek  the  law  of  the 
Lord  and  to  do  it,  and  to  teach  in  Israel  statutes  and 
judgments."  After  a  few  days,  "  the  princes,"  who 
apparently  had  succeeded  Zerubbabel  in  the  govern- 
ment, complained  to  Ezra,  who  came  with  authority 
from  the  Persian  King,  that  the  people  had  intermar- 
ried, contrary  to  the  law,  with  the  neighboring  people. 
Ezra  at  once  set  about  a  reform,  and  a  covenant  was 
made  to  put  away  their  unlawful  wives.  "  And  let  it 
be  done,"  they  said,  '■'■according  to  the  law^  "Some 
of  these  wives  had  children,"  not  all.  The  whole 
rumber  of  guilty  persons  was  one  hundred  and  thir- 
teen only,  out  of  a  population  of  over  fifty  thou- 
sand. Not  a  great  number,  certainly,  if  we  consider 
the  condition  of  the  people  and  the  strength  of  the 
temiDtation.  This  act  of  Ezra  is  founded  upon  no  new 
interpretation  of  "  the  law  written  by  Moses,'"  which  had 
been  the  law  of  the  nation  from  the  beginning;  much 
less  was  it  a  new  law  of  Ezra's. 

Nehemiah  now  visits  Jerusalem.  In  his  prayer  for 
guidance  before  he  left  the  palace  in  Shushan,  he  con- 
fesses that  "we  have  not  kept  the  commandments,  nor 
the  statutes,  nor  the  judgments,  which  thon  commandest 
thy  servant  Moses,"  as  if  he  knew  no  code  but  the  old 
code  of  the  fathers, —  the  code  which  the  returned 
people  had  used  for  three  generations,  "  as  written  in 


KUENEN'S   religion   of    ISRAEL.  5 1 

the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses."  Complaint  was  made  to 
Nehemiah  that  the  poor  were  oppressed  by  the  "  usury  " 
demanded,  and  some  of  them  had  lost  their  homes  by 
the  unlawful  and  cruel  exaction  of  creditors.  Nehe- 
miah was  "  angry,  and  rebuked  the  nobles  and  the 
rulers,  and  directed  them  to  leave  off  this  usury  and  to 
restore  their  olive  yards  and  houses."  And  they  prom- 
ised under  oath  to  do  so.  After  some  years,  Ezra  again 
appears  upon  the  stage  as  a  teacher  of  the  law.  The 
people  felt  their  need  of  fuller  instruction.  He  used 
for  this  purpose  "  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  which 
the  Lord  had  commanded  for  Israel."  The  same  book 
evidently  which  Zerubbabel  had  used  seventy  years 
before,  and  of  which  Nehemiah  spoke  in  his  prayer. 
This  old  "book  of  the  law"  Ezra  read  and  explained 
to  the  people.  The  devout  wept  when  they  learned 
how  they  had  sinned.  The  direction  to  dwell  in 
"booths"  in  the  seventh  month  seems  to  have  been 
new  to  them,  though  they  had  kept  the  "  feast  of  the 
tabernacles  "  since  their  return. 

A  farther  separation  takes  place  from  "strangers." 
In  the  ninth  cha,pter,  a  synopsis  of  the  history  of  the 
people  is  given  as  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch,  showing 
that  the  "  law  "  which  was  read  was  supposed  to  have 
had  its  origin  at  that  time ;  and  the  covenant  of  the 
fathers  is  renewed  by  the  children,  "  to  walk  in  God's 
law,  which  was  given  by  Moses,  the  scrvafit  of  God,  and 
to  observe  and  do  all  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord,  .  .  .  and  not  to  give  our  daughters  unto  the 
people  of  the  land,  nor  take  their  daughters  for  our 
sons."  And  they  promise  to  contribute  to  the  support 
cf  the  'Lq\'\Xqs  ^^  as  it  is  writteti  in  the  law."     All  this  is 


52  INTRODUCTORY. 

in  the  Pentateuch,  and  is  not  spoken  of  as  anything 
new,  A  selection  of  one  man  in  ten  is  made  by  lot  to 
dwell  in  Jerusalem.  This  is  new;  but  it  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  ritual.  They  further  ^^7-ead  m  the  book  of 
Moses  that  the  Ammonite  and  the  Moabite  should  not 
come  into  the  congregation  of  God  forever."  They 
therefore  "separated  from  Israel  all  the  mixed  multi- 
tude." Nehemiah,  also,  reformed  the  acts  and  labors 
of  the  people  on  the  Sabbath,  to  conform  to  the 
"custom"  of  the  fathers.  This  is  all.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  shade  of  evidence  that  Ezra  introduced 
an  entire  new  code  of  laws,  never  before  known,  but 
the  contrary.  A  few  new  arrangements  are  made  to 
meet  the  new  condition,  in  which  the  people  find  them- 
selves ;  but  there  is  not  a  hint  that  anything  new  to 
which  they  were  not  accustomed,  save  in  three  or  four 
instances  at  the  most,  and  these  unimportant,  was 
added  to  "  the  book  of  the  law  given  by  Moses."  It  is 
incredible  that  no  breath  of  opposition  should  have 
been  felt  against  this  code,  if  it  had  not  been  what  it 
claimed  to  be,  "  the  law  given  by  Moses"  It  is  incredi- 
ble, if  there  had  been  any  opposition  on  this  ground, 
that  no  hint  of  it,  nor  the  slightest  trace  of  it,  should 
be  found  in  these  accounts  of  the  reorganization  of 
the  national  worship.  The  very  slight  changes  in  a 
few  forms,  which  changed  circumstances  compelled,  by 
no  means  furnish  proof  or  justify  the  suspicion  that 
the  whole  post-captivity  code  was  the  invention  of 
priests  for  selfish  purposes,  with  Ezra  at  their  head ; 
and  that  he  had  the  hardihood  to  proclaim  to  the 
people  that  it  was  the  very  "  law  given  by  Moses,"  and 
"  written  "  by  him.  and  observed  by  their  fathers,  and 


KUENEN's    religion   of    ISRAEL.  53 

whose  violation,  at  last,  was  the  cause  of  their  captivity 
and  renewed  obedience  to  which  would  now  make  them 
prosperous ;  and  that  the  people  were  so  stupid  as  not 
to  detect  the  fraud  and  expose  the  deceivers,  and  visit 
them  with  swiftest  and  severest  punishment ;  or,  if 
they  did,  that  all  record  of  this  detection,  opposition, 
and  punishment,  should  have  been  lost  by  accident, 
or  erased  by  design,  from  both  history  and  prophecy. 
That  the  historical  books  contain  no  evidence  of  such  a 
ritual-forgery  palmed  off  upon  the  returned  exiles,  we 
have  already  fully  shown.  Nay,  more  :  we  have  shown 
that  every  fragment  of  these  annals,  every  shred  of  the 
story,  informs  us  that  this  "  law  "  was  the  old  law,  and 
that  this  ritual  was  the  ritual  of  the  fathers.  We  turn 
now  to  examine  the  teachings  of  the  prophets  during 
this  period,  to  see  whether  Dr.  Kuenen's  appeal  to 
them  in  support  of  his  theory  is  of  any  more  value 
than  his  appeal  to  history.  Unless  we  utterly  mistake, 
this  support  will  also  prove  to  be  a  broken  reed  which 
will  pierce  him  through  who  leans  upon  it. 

(i)  Dr.  Kuenen  says  "  that  when  Ezekiel,  in  the 
year  572  B.C.,  wrote  his  description  of  the  new  Israel- 
itish  State  (chaps,  xl. — xlviii.),  no  written  regulations 
for  religious  worship,  no  complete  priestly  legislation, 
yet  existed."  And  he  says  further,  "that  no  evident 
trace  of  these  laws,  or  of  the  spirit  which  they  breathe, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  prophecies  which  saw  the  light 
toward  the   end  of   the   captivity, —  about   538    B.C.* 

Ezekiel  we  will  notice  first,  as  being  probably  the 
earliest  of  the  group,  then  the  later  Isaiah  and  Zccha- 
riah,  and  then  Haggai  and  Malachi,     Ezekiel  was  not 

•Vol.  II.,  p.  I  S3. 


54  INTRODUCTORY. 

of  the  company  carried  to  Babylon.  He  was  a  dweller 
on  the  remote  river  Chebar.  The  description  which  he 
gives  (chaps,  xl. — xlviii.)  of  the  division  of  the  land 
among  the  returned  exiles,  whenever  they  should  return, 
and  of  the  temple  they  would  build,  is  purely  ideal,  and 
as  impracticable,  should  an  attempt  be  made  to  make 
it  real,  as  the  throne  or  chariot  of  the  Deity  which 
he  describes  in  chapter  i.  is  impracticable.  This  Dr. 
Kuenen  admits  apparently,  but  he  will  not  admit  that 
Ezekiel  would  have  given  play  to  his  imagination  in 
describing  the  "  ritual  "  of  his  ideal  temple.  Why  not  ? 
Was  the  sacrifice  more  sacred  than  the  altar?  Was 
the  priest's  attire  more  holy  than  the  "  holy  of  holies  "  ? 
Why,  then,  should  the  prophet  restrain  his  pen  in  de- 
scribing the  "  snuffers  "  and  the  "  snuffer-trays  "  and 
the  "  tongs  "  and  the  robes,  when  he  had  not  shrunk 
from  describing  ideally  the  altar  and  the  holy  place? 
The  presumption  is  that  he  would  not.  "  Why  did  he 
go  into  these  minute  descriptions  of  the  ritual,  if  he 
had  the  Pentateuch  ?  Why  did  he  not  content  himself 
with  a  simple  reference  to  the  Mosaic  laws  ? "  asks 
Dr.  Kuenen.  If  Ezekiel  was  here,  we  have  no  doubt 
he  would  reply.  Because  I  was  writing  a  poem,  and 
wished  to  fill  out  my  ideal  state  and  temple  and  ritual 
in  every  particular.  Besides,  Ezekiel  clings  close  to 
the  forms  and  substance  contained  in  the  Pentateuch 
which  he  idealizes  in  his  poem.  Dr.  Kuenen  says  "he 
v/as  not  acquainted  with  the  whole  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
Deuteronomy  and  the  still  older  book  of  the  covenant 
ate  presupposed  by  him  throughout,  but  nothing  be- 
yond these  collections."  Now  the  fact  is  this :  by  a 
careful  collation  of  the  passages  and  references  which 


KUENEN's   religion   of    ISRAEL.  55 

are  found  in  Ezekiel,  nearly  the  whole  ritual  as  it  is  con- 
tained in  the  Pentateuch  could  be  obtained.  Ezekiel 
uses  the  whole  of  the  ritual  as  it  stands  in  the  Penta- 
teuch; that  is,  all  which  his  work  demanded.  Could 
space  be  given,  we  would  prove  it  by  an  examination  of 
the  passages  quoted.  It  must  suffice,  however,  to  say 
that  Ezekiel  shows  himself  to  be  perfectly  familiar 
with  the  "law  of  Moses"  as  recorded  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, writing  in  a  distant  part  of  the  country,  one 
hundred  and  fourteen  years  before  Ezra  went  up  to 
Jerusalem,  and  thirty-six  years  before  the  great  migra- 
tion under  Zerubbabel,  who  had  regard  in  offering  sac- 
rifices to  what  "  was  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  the 
man  of  God,"  and  who  arranged  the  courses  of  the 
priests  "  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Moses."  * 

(2)  We  turn  to  examine  the  support  furnished  to 
Dr.  Kuenen's  theory  by  the  later,  or  "Deutero,"  Isaiah, 
This  writer  "lays  special  stress  upon  Jahveh's  one- 
ness'''';  he  expresses  most  significantly  his  contempt 
of  false  gods  ;  he  is  a  strong  "  monotheist."  There  is 
not  a  passage  which  implies  the  non-existence  of  the 
ritual  law  or  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  much  to  the  con- 
trary. He  speaks  of  the  worthlessness  of  the  ritual 
unless  the  heart  is  in  its  observance ;  but  this  is  evi- 
dence for  the  existence  of  the  ritual,  and  not  proof 
that  it  did  not  exist.  As  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
recur  to  this  writer  again  before  we  finish  this  discus- 
sion, we  waive  farther  examination  of  his  work  till 
then,  having  said  sufficient  to  show  that  Dr.  Kuenen's 
inference  is  unfounded.! 

*For  further  proof,  see  "  Study  of  the  Pentateuch,"  under  "Ezekiel,"  p.  105. 
t  See  "Study  of  the  Pentateuch,"  under  "  Isaiak,"  p.  112. 


56  INTRODUCTORY. 

(3)  But  a  word  is  necessary  upon  the  writings  of 
the  later  Zechariah.  He  was  a  contemporary  of  Zerub- 
babel,  and  the  numerous  visions  which  he  describes 
assume  the  existence  of  the  ritual,  though  no  direct 
reference  is  made  to  it.  Indeed,  Dr.  Kuenen  does  not 
appear  to  place  much  reliance  upon  his  silence  as  valid 
evidence  that  the  ritual  was  not  in  existence,  and  re- 
garded as  far  as  the  circumstances  would  allow. 

(4)  The  prophet  Haggai,  in  the  brief  fragment  of 
only  two  chapters  of  his  writings  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  uses  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
speaks  of  "the  law,"  as  respecting  things  "clean  and 
unclean."  Dr.  Kuenen  infers  from  chap,  ii.,  11,  be- 
cause the  prophet  directs  the  people  to  inquire  "  con- 
cerning the  law "  of  the  priests,  that  there  were  no 
"enactments  of  the  written  law":  "only  a  priestly 
tradition  existed."  As  if,  because  one  was  referred  to 
the  lawyer  when  he  inquired  after  the  "law"  on  a  cer- 
tain subject,  we  should  infer  that  there  was  no  statute, 
written  law,  but  only  the  tradition  of  the  bar.  It  so 
happens  that  the  very  point  inquired  about  is  stated 
and  decided  in  Numbers  xix.,  11.  Haggai  furnishes 
no  support  to  Dr.  Kuenen's  theory. 

(5)  The  brief  prophecy  of  Malachi,  who  was  a 
contemporary  of  Nehemiah,  is  thought  by  Dr.  Kuenen 
to  give  support  to  his  theory,  because  he  shows  that 
"Ezra  and  Nehemiah  in  their  attempt  at  reform  met 
with  strong  opposition."  The  people  violated  the  law 
in  various  ways,  and  some  of  them  despised  Jahveh's 
name.  But  this  "  law  "  which  Malachi  denounces  the 
people  for  disregarding  and  violating  is  no  forgery  of 
the  priesthood   and   Ezra,   no   new  ritual  palmed   off 


KUKNEN  S    RELIGION    OF    ISRAEL.  57 

upon  tlie  nation  by  a  conspiring  hierarchy,  Nehemiah 
assenting  and  abetting, —  it  was  none  other  than  '■'■the 
law  of  Moscs,^^  the  servant  of  Jehovah,  which  God 
^^ commanded  him  in  Horeb  for  all  Israel.''^  If  Malachi 
reproved  the  people,  it  was  for  transgressing  the  "  law 
as  it  was  written  by  Afoses  " ;  and,  if  the  people  opposed 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  it  was  because  they  enforced 
against  evil-doers  ^^the  law  as  written  by  Moses"  and 
not  a  fraudulent  code  of  Ezra's.  There  is  not  a 
shadow  of  evidence  that  any  opposition  arose  against 
the  administration  of  these  men  because  they  intro- 
duced "  new  laws  never  before  heard  of  " ;  but  all  the 
evidence  that  exists  of  the  opposition  itself  as  well  as 
of  its  cause  implies  or  affirms  that  it  originated  in  the 
enforcement  of  laws  whose  violation  was  the  cause  of 
their  captivity,  and  whose  origin  was  in  the  ancient 
days,  "  in  Horeb,"  and  whose  author  "  was  Moses,  the 
man  of  God." 

The  prophetical  writings  of  this  period  not  only  give 
no  countenance  to  Dr.  Kuenen's  theory,  but  they  op- 
pose it  in  letter  as  well  as  in  spirit. 

We  have  now  examined  the  main  reasons  adduced 
by  Dr.  Kuenen  in  support  of  his  hypotheses  of  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  they  are  less  frequently 
stated  than  implied  in  these  volumes.  To  discuss  every 
point  affirmed  or  suggested,  to  challenge  every  state- 
ment which  is  doubtful  or  incorrect,  to  expose  every 
fallacious  inference  from  conceded  facts,  would  de- 
mand as  many  volumes  as  the  original  work.  We  have 
omitted  nothing  vital  to  his  argument.* 

See  Appendix  B,  page  66. 


58  INTRODUCTORY. 

Thus  far  in  the  discussion,  we  have  been  laboring  at 
a  disadvantage.  We  have  been  proving  a  negative. 
We  have  been  showing  that  the  arguments  adduced  by 
Dr.  Kuenen  are  not  valid  to  sustain  his  theory  of  the 
late  and  forged  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.  The 
positive  argument  for  its  antiquity  and  substantial  gen- 
uineness does  not  appear.  Dr.  Kuenen's  argument  in 
support  of  his  theory  may  be  confuted,  and  yet  his 
theory  may  be  correct.  We  propose,  therefore,  to  dis- 
cuss the  question  positively  and  affirmatively,  confuting 
his  theory  indirectly  by  an  examination  into  the  age 
and  authorship  of  the  so-called  Books  of  Moses  di- 
rectly and  critically,  as  we  have  confuted  his  arguments 
in  support  of  it  by  testing  their  logical  and  historical 
value.  We  gird  ourselves  to  the  work  in  the  assurance 
that  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch  can  be  vindicated, 
and  that  the  Mosaic  origin  of  most  of  its  contents  can 
be  established. 


APPENDIX  A.* 

In  The  Bible  for  Learners,  by  Dr.  H.  Oort,  Professor 
of  Oriental  Languages,  etc.,  Amsterdam,  and  Dr.  T. 
Hooykaas,  pastor  at  Rotterdam,  with  the  assistance  of 
Dr.  A.  Kuenen,  Professor  of  Theology  at  Leiden,  there 
are  abundant  specimens  of  these  "flimsiest  specula- 
tions." I  quote  a  few  to  justify  to  the  reader  the 
use  of  such  language  respecting  the  works  of  this 
school  of  critics. 

"The  tabernacle,"  Dr.  Oort  says,  "never  really  ex- 
isted, except  in  the  imagination  of  the  writer,"  who  lived 
after  the  captivity.  This  writer  must  have  been  infatu- 
ated with  this  creation  of  his  imagination,  of  "  rams' 
skins  dyed  red,"  and  "badger  skins,"  and  "fine-twined 
linen,"  and  "  loops  and  couplings,  blue  upon  the  edge, 
and  taches  and  curtains  of  goats'  hair,  and  boards  of 
shittim  wood,  and  two  tenons  on  one  board,  and  forty 
sockets  of  silver,  two  sockets  under  one  board,  and  bars 
of  shittim  wood,  five  bars  for  the  boards  of  the  taber- 
nacle on  the  one  side,  and  five  bars  for  the  boards  of 
the  tabernacle  on  the  other  side,  and  the  middle  bar  in 
the  midst  of  the  boards  shall  reach  from  end  to  end," 
etc., —  must  have  been  infatuated,  indeed,  for  he  repeats 
the  wearisome,  dry  details  in  the  following  chapters, 
which  one  has  hardly  patience  to  read  once. 

The  "representation  of  the  camp  of  the  Israelites," 
as  given  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  we  are  told  "  the  writer 

•  See  page  8. 


6o  INTRODUCTORY. 

had  invented  and  worked  out  himself."  No  truth  is  in 
it.  We  must  class  it  with  the  historical  "  lies,"  for  there 
is  no  doubt  about  the  writer's  intending  that  his  readers 
should  believe  it  was  a  true  description  of  the  work  of 
Moses. 

Dr.  Oort  tells  "  learners  "  that  "  the  prophet  Malachi 
[420-450  B.C.]  is  the  first  to  use  the  expression  'law 
of  Moses.'  "  Now,  the  title  is  used  I.  Kings  ii.,  3,  and 
II.  Kings  xxiii.,  25,  books  acknowledged  by  such  critics 
as  De  Wette  and  Davidson  to  have  been  written  about 
550  B.C.  And  the  title  is  also  used  by  the  writer  of 
the  Book  of  Joshua,  placed  by  the  same  critics  about 
650  B.C.,  or  two  centuries  earlier  than  Dr.  Oort  admits 
that  the  title  was  used.  Dr.  Oort  tells  "  learners  "  that 
*'  the  very  name  given  to  .  .  .  the  Mount  of  Sinai  signi- 
fies the  moon-god."  We  do  not  say  that  some  modern 
critics  are  moon-struck,  but  the  moon  has  as  much  in- 
fluence on  their  criticism  as  it  has  on  the  meteorology 
of  the  rustic.  Gesenius  (Hebrew  Thesaurus,  ad  verb.) 
says  Sinai  signifies  ^^ lutum,"  "mire  "  !  Again,  Dr.  Oort 
tells  "  learners  "  that  "  the  very  name  of  the  hero  himself 
[Samson]  signifies  '  sun-god.' "  Gesenius  says  it  signi- 
fies "sunlike."  These  assertions  need  no  comment. 
They  admonish  "  learners  "  to  choose  judicious  teachers, 
and  to  beware  of  disregarding  truth,  as  the  Hebrew 
writers  are  said  to  have  done. 

Dr.  Oort  seems  disposed,  at  times,  to  give  the  worst 
interpretation  possible  to  popular  phraseology.  For 
example,  he  says  the  proverb,  as  used  in  Ecclesiastes, 
"  A  living  dog  is  better  than  a  dead  lion,"  means,  "  Life, 
though  branded  with  infamy,  is  preferable  to  the  most 
honorable  of  deaths  "  !     The  real  meaning  of  the  pro- 


KUENEN's   religion   of    ISRAEL.  6l 

verb  is,  while  there  is  life  there  is  capacity,  activity, 
hope  of  change  from  misfortune  and  sorrow;  but  when 
dead  we  are  good  for  nothing,  can  do  nothing,  can  hope 
for  nothing.  "  Infamy  "  is  not  said  to  be  "preferable  to 
death."  So  base  a  sentiment  could  not  be  found  among 
the  Ojibways. 

We  will  take  one  of  Dr.  Oort's  myths,  and  learn  his 
style  of  interpretation.  Solar  myths  are  fashionable  now 
among  the  critics ;  and  the  story  of  Samson  opens  a 
rich  field  for  fancy  to  riot  in,  as  Dr.  Oort  in  his  chapter 
on  this  Hebrew  athlete  illustrates.  He  opens  his  criti- 
cism with  a  reference  to  Osiris  and  Horos  and  Typhon 
and  Herakles  and  Balder  and  Loki,  original  solar  myths ; 
and,  as  the  "  very  name  "  of  the  hero  "  Samson  "  signi- 
fies "  sun-god,"  the  reader  is  admonished  in  the  outset 
of  the  solar  myth  to  be  narrated.  A  rhetorical  descrip- 
tion, in  his  own  language,  is  given  of  the  interview  of 
the  angel  and  Manoah,  the  father  of  Samson.  He  then 
interprets  :  "  Samson  had  long  hair.  These  long  hairs 
are  rays  of  the  sun.  The  angel  who  rises  up  in  the 
flame  of  Manoah's  sacrifice  signifies  the  glow  of  the 
dawn  that  blazes  against  the  heavens,  and  heralds  the 
approach  of  the  sun  who  brings  to  the  world  fresh  life." 
This  is  rich,  but  there  is  richer  in  store.  Dr.  Oort  gives 
a  glowing  description  of  Samson's  exploits,  "killing  the 
lion,"  "getting  honey  from  the  carcass,"  and  his  riddle 
about  it.  A  very  simple  thing  for  a  fellow  like  Samson 
to  do.  Now  for  the  mythical  interpretation.  The  "  lion" 
is  a  "sign  in  the  zodiac."  "Samson  rends  the  lion; 
that  is  to  say,  the  sun  passes  through  the  constellation 
of  that  name."  ..."  How  did  sweet  food,  honey,  pro- 
ceed from  the  strong  and  ravenous  lion  ?"..."  When 


62  INTRODUCTORY. 

the  sun  passes  through  the  lion,  the  bees  make  their 
combs ;  and,  when  he  leaves  it,  the  honey  is  ready."  Is 
not  this  richer?  Instead  of  saying,  what  was  not  at  all 
improbable,  that  a  swarm  of  bees  had  made  honey  in 
the  hollow,  bone-covered  portion  of  the  fleshless  re- 
mains of  the  slain  beast,  we  are  directed  to  the  constel- 
lations for  an  answer  to  the  riddle.  It  is  no  wonder 
that  the  Philistines  did  not  guess  the  riddle,  and  it  is  a 
wonder  that  Samson  was  such  a  fool  as  to  think  they 
did  when  they  did  not ;  for  they  only  thought  of  the 
real  beast :  they  had  no  zodiacal  signs  in  mind. 

Now  for  the  story  of  the  jackals  (foxes),  tied  "  tail 
to  tail,  with  a  burning  torch  between  them,"  and  sent 
among  the  Philistines'  wheat  all  ready  to  harvest,  which 
so  provoked  them  that  they  followed  him  to  Lehi,  where 
he  was  delivered  up  by  his  friends,  who  feared  the  ven- 
geance of  the  Philistines,  bound  with  two  new  ropes. 
But,  when  the  Philistines  shouted  and  came  upon  him, 
he  snapped  the  ropes,  and  seized  the  jaw-bone  of  an 
ass,  and  slew  them  by  the  thousand ;  and  they  fled ; 
and,  when  he  was  thirsty,  he  cried  to  Yahweh,  and 
*''God  split  the  hollow  of  the  jaw-bone,  and  water 
flowed  out  from  it  to  drink."  One  word  of  criticism 
before  proceeding  to  give  the  mythical  interpretation 
of  this  exploit.  The  water  did  not  flow  from  the 
hollow  in  the  jaw-bone  of  the  ass,  used  by  Samson  in 
beating  off  the  Philistines,  but  from  a  hollow,  a  spring, 
in  Lehi,  the  place  where  the  squabble  was.  Now,  the 
Hebrew  word  Lehi  signifies  "jaw";  and  Dr.  Oort 
thinks  the  Lehi  where  the  spring  of  water  was  was 
the  jaw-bone  of  the  ass,  and  not  the  place  Lehi.  Our 
translators  made  a  mistake  in  translating  the  name: 


KUENEN'S    religion    of    ISRAEL.  63 

"  But  God  clave  a  hollow  place  that  was  in  the  jaw," 
when  they  should  have  said,  "a  hollow  place  that  was 
in  Lehi,"  There  was  a  spring  of  water  in  that  place, 
Lehi,  which  Samson  found  and  drank  from.     This  is  all. 

But  it  is  time  to  give  Dr.  Oort's  mythical  interpreta- 
tion. In  "  the  reddish-brown  jackals,  with  torches  be- 
tween their  tails,  we  easily  recognize  the  lurid  thunder- 
clouds, from  the  projecting  points  [tails .?]  of  which 
lightning  flashes  seem  to  dart."  "When  he  has  tri- 
umphed over  his  foes,  the  sun-god  no  longer  uses  the 
thunder-cloud  as  a  weapon,  but  makes  the  rain  pour 
out  of  it.  This  explains  why  Samson  threw  away  his 
weapon  after  the  victory,  and  that  a  spring  rose  from 
the  hollow  of  the  jaw-bone."  This  is  certainly  richer 
still ! 

Patience !  But  one  more  specimen  remains.  Samson 
loses  his  locks  by  the  betrayal  of  Delilah,  and  grinds 
in  the  mill  of  the  Philistines,  among  the  women.  His 
hair  grows  again ;  he  is  taken  out  to  make  sport  for  the 
curious  multitude,  who  so  pile  the  roof  of  the  building 
that,  by  a  push  upon  a  couple  of  its  pillars,  it  fell,  and 
killed  many  besides  Samson.  All  very  probable  and 
intelligible,  and  substantially  true,  past  all  reasonable 
question.  Now  for  the  solar-myth  interpretation.  Los- 
ing his  locks  in  the  winter  months,  "  the  sun-god  is 
gradually  encompassed  by  his  enemies,  mist  and  dark- 
ness. He  loses  all  his  power  and  glory.  Gradually 
his  strength  returns,  and  at  last  he  reappears,  .  .  .  and, 
in  the  end,  triumphs  over  his  enemies  once  more.  This 
final  victory  is  represented  by  the  scene  in  the  Temple 
of  Dagon."  The  sun  dies  every  year,  and  comes  to  life 
aiiain  :  but  "  Samson  was  buried  between  Zorah  and 


64  INTRODUCTORY. 

Eshtahol,  m  the  burying-place  of  Manoah,  his  father," 
and  we  hear  no  more  of  him.  Such  is  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  stories  of  the  Bible  commended  to  "learn- 
ers." It  is  true  that  this  is  the  most  extravagant  one  of 
all  that  have  come  under  my  observation ;  but  the  only 
reason  why  others  are  not  as  extravagant  seems  to  be 
that  no  others  furnish  such  opportunity  for  the  revels  of 
imagination.  If  this  is  criticism,  what  would  be  trav- 
esty ? 

An  instance  of  the  way  the  author  has  of  charging 
the  Hebrew  writers  with  disregard  of  truth,  and  of  fal- 
sifying their  own  records,  is  found  in  his  account  of  the 
story  of  Korah.*  "  A  later  priest,"  he  says,  "  who  ac- 
cepted the  story  as  historical,  was  sadly  perplexed  by 
the  fact  that  Korah's  family  not  only  still  existed,  but 
was  held  in  high  honor.  He  therefore  took  the  liberty 
of  making  a  note  to  the  effect  that  Korah's  children  did 
not  perish  with  him  (Numbers  xxvi.,  1 1),  thereby  contra- 
dicting the  story  itself,  which  expressly  says  that  both 
he  and  his  were  destroyed  "  (Numbers  xvi.,  32).  Now, 
the  original  account  does  nof  say  that  the  children  of 
Korah  were  swallowed  up.  It  does  not  even  say  that 
Korah  was  swallowed  up.  It  says  that  "  Dathan  and 
Abiram  came  out  and  stood  in  the  door  of  their  tents, 
and  their  wives  and  their  sons  and  their  little  children  ; 
.  ,  .  and  the  earth  opened  her  mouth  and  swallowed 
ihem  up,  and  their  houses,  and  all  the  vien  that  apper- 
tained to  Korah,  and  all  their  goods.  They,  and  all  that 
appertained  to  them,  went  down  alive  into  the  pit."  .  .  . 
Not  a  word  is  said  that  Korah  was  there  with  Dathan 
and  Abiram  when  the  earth  opened.     It  is  nowhere  said 

»ypl.  II.,  page  523. 


KUENEN's   religion   of   ISRAEL.  65 

that  Korah  or  his  children  were  swallowed  up.  It  is 
nowhere  said  that  Korah,  himself,  was  killed,  either  by 
the  opening  of  the  earth  or  by  the  "fire  that  came  out 
from  the  Lord  and  consumed  the  two  hundred  and  fifty 
men  that  offered  incense  "  "  at  the  door  of  the  taberna- 
cle of  the  congregation."  But,  as  Moses  had  told  Ko- 
rah the  day  before  to  be  present  with  his  company  at 
that  place,  it  is  a  fair  inference  that  he  was  one  of  the 
two  hundred  and  fifty  who  were  "  consumed  by  fire  from 
the  Lord  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,"  while  Dathan 
and  Abiram  and  their  families  were  swallowed  up  in 
another  part  of  the  camp,  where  were  the  tents  of 
Reubenites.  So  far  is  it,  therefore,  from  being  true 
that  Hebrew  writers  "  concerned  themselves  very  little 
with  the  question  whether  what  they  narrated  really 
happened  so  or  not,"  that  they  excelled,  in  accXiracy  of 
writing  and  scrupulous  regard  to  facts,  some  of  their 
modern  readers  and  commentators. 


APPENDIX   B.* 

Some  of  Dr.  Kuenen's  affirmations  are  too  important 
to  be  passed  by  in  entire  silence. 

(I.)  Dr.  Kuenen  affirms  (Vol.  II.,  p.  299)  "that  the 
Deuteronomist  considers  all  Levites,  without  distinc- 
tion, qualified  to  fill  the  priestly  office,"  and  "  that  a 
reconciliation  of  Deuteronomy  with  Exodus  —  Numbers 
is  not  to  be  thought  of."  This,  he  affirms,  is  certain 
"from  Deuteronomy  X.,  8,  9;  and  xviii.,  1-8,  where  he 
[the  Deuteronomist]  expresses  himself  quite  unambigu- 
ously," ..."  He  directly  contradicts  them  [Exodus — 
Numbers]  .  .  .  and  expressly  allows  (Deuteronomy 
xviii.,  6,  7)  that  which,  according  to  the  priestly  law- 
giver (Numbers  xviii.,  3),  is  punished  with  death. 

We  take  distinct  issue  with  Dr.  Kuenen  on  this 
point.  In  Deuteronomy  xviii.,  6,  7,  we  read,  "  If  a  Le- 
vite  come  from  any  of  thy  gates  out  of  all  Israel  where 
he  sojourned,  and  come  with  all  the  desire  of  his  mind 
unto  the  place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose,  there  he 
shall  minister  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  as  all 
his  brethren  the  Levites  do,  which  stand  before  the  Lord." 
Now  what  says  Numbers  xviii.,  2,  3 }  "And  thy 
[Aaron's]  brethren  of  the  tribe  of  thy  father,  bring 
them  with  thee,  that  .  .  .  they  may  minister  unto  thee ; 
but  thou  and  thy  sons  with  thee  shall  minister  before  the 
tabernacle  of  witness,  and  they  shall  keep  thy  charge  and 
the  charge  of  all  the  tabernacle;  only  they  shall  tiot  come 

•See  page  57. 


KUENEN's    religion   of    ISRAEL.  67 

nigh  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  altar,  that 
neither  they,  nor  ye  also,  die."  And  further  on  in  this 
chapter  many  specific  duties  of  the  Levites,  as  distin- 
guished from  those  of  the  priests,  are  enumerated. 
Where,  we  ask  with  emphasis,  does  Numbers  "ex- 
pressly contradict "  Deuteronomy  ?  What  does  Deu- 
teronomy "expressly  allow"  which  Numbers  "pun- 
ishes with  death  "  ?  Both  direct  that  Levites  may  serve 
at  the  tabernacle,  Numbers  specifying  their  duties, 
Deuteronomy  only  saying  that  the  persons  specified 
'■'■should  serve  as  all  the  Levites  do  "  /  that  is,  as  directed 
in  Numbers.  We  renew  our  question  with  stronger 
emphasis.  Where  is  the  "direct  contradiction  "? 

Now  let  us  examine  the^rst  afBrmation  that  "«;//  Le- 
vites, without  distinction,  [were]  qualified  to  fill  the 
priestly  office,"  according  to  Deuteronomy  viii.,  9 ; 
xviii.,  1-8.  We  have  already  quoted  the  important 
portion  of  the  latter  passage,  and  have  only  to  remark 
that  all  attempts  to  build  up  a  theory  of  the  Jewish 
priesthood  and  the  identity  of  the  office  of  the  priest 
and  the  Levite,  because  of  the  use  of  the  phrase,  "The 
priests,  the  Levites,"  are  futile.  All  priests  were  Le- 
vites, but  "all"  Levites  were  not  qualified  for  priests; 
and  this  idiomatic  phrase  proves  only  that  priests 
were  Levites.  A  critical  examination  of  this  Hebrew 
idiom  would  take  too  much  space,  and  lead  us  into 
details  too  dry  and  minute  to  interest  our  readers  ;  and 
we  refer  them  to  the  constructio  asyndeta  of  the  Hebrew 
grammars.  We  turn,  therefore,  to  notice  the  other 
passage,  which  proves  that  "cr//  Levites,  without  dis- 
tinction, [were]  qualified  to  fill  the  priestly  office," 
Deuteronomy  x,,  8,  9.     It  reads  thus :  "  At  that  time 


68  INTRODUCTORY. 

[at  Mount  Sinai]  the  Lord  separated  the  tribe  of  Levi 
to  bear  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  to  stand 
before  the  Lord  to  minister  to  him,  and  to  bless  in  his 
name  unto  this  day.  Wherefore  Levi  hath  no  part 
nor  inheritance  with  his  brethren ;  the  Lord  is  his  in- 
heritance, according  as  the  Lord  thy  God  promised 
him."  What  is  there  in  this  passage  to  show  that 
"air'  Levites  were  or  might  be  priests?  Not  a  line. 
The  duty  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  is  specified  in  the  briefest 
manner,  including  the  service  of  both  priests  and  Le- 
vites, into  which  two  classes  the  tribe  is  elsewhere  said 
to  be  divided.  "The  reconciliation  of  Deuteronomy 
with  Exodus  —  Numbers  is  not  to  be  thought  of," 
therefore,  only  because  there  is  nothing  to  reconcile. 
Where  there  is  no  contradiction,  there  is  no  demand 
for  conciliation.  Dr.  Kuenen's  inference,  therefore, 
that,  since  the  Deuteronomist  makes  no  distinction 
between  the  priest  and  Levite,  he  must  have  written 
before  the  "  priestly  ritual  "  of  Exodus  —  Numbers  and 
of  Ezra  was  composed,  is  without  support.  Dr.  Kuenen 
has  mistaken  an  eddy  for  the  current.* 

(II.)  Dr.  Kuenen  says  again  (Vol.  II.,  p.  ii6), 
"Ezekiel  is  the  first  to  desire  other  rules  [than  that 
all  Levites  might  officiate  as  priests] /t^r  the  future: 
after  the  return  of  Israel  to  her  native  land,  *  the  sons 
of  Zadok '  shall  be  the  only  lawful  priests."  But  it  is 
evident  from  the  context  (Ezekiel  xliv.,  lo-xlv.)  that 

*The  statement,  Unitarian  J? r?»zi?w,  Nov.  1880,  p.  937,  that,  "  before  this 
captivity,  the  terms  '  priest '  and  '  Levite '  are  synonymous,"  is  incorrect,  as  shown 
"(III.)"  ■>  3nd  another  writer  echoes  Kueren's  statement  to  the  same  effect,  and 
further  informs  us  that  Kuenen  "  revised  his  whole  scheme  of  Israel's  history  " 
on  account  of  this  supposed  synonymousness  of  "priest"  and  "Levite."  A 
pyramid  on  its  apex,  surely.     See  "  The  Levitical  Priests,"  by  Curtis. 


KUENEN's   religion   of    ISRAEL.  69 

Ezekiel  had  reference  in  this  passage  to  the  Levites, 
and  priests  of  the  family  of  Aaron,  who  had  served  at 
the  altars  of  false  gods  in  the  reigns  of  Hezekiah  and 
Josiah,  and  who  had  thus  forfeited  their  claim  to  their 
official  position ;  and  as  the  "  sons  of  Zadok  "  only  of 
the  family  of  Aaron  remained  loyal  to  Jehovah,  they 
alone  could  officiate  as  priests.  The  most  sacred  ser- 
vices of  the  temple  could  be  performed  by  them  alone. 
Ezekiel  desires  no  new  rule.  He  only  enforces  an  old 
one  that  those  who  forsake  Jehovah  and  serve  at  the 
altars  of  false  gods  shall  not  serve  at  his  altar.  Dr. 
Kuenen  is  betrayed  into  this  error  by  his  not  seeing 
that  the  priests  are  sometimes  spoken  of  as  Levites  of 
whom  they  formed  a  part  when  the  writer  refers  to  the 
position  and  duties  of  the  tribe  as  a  body.  And  while 
in  some  instances  it  must  be  confessed  that  the  sacred 
writers  are  not  so  clear  as  is  desirable,  yet  nothing  but 
an  "  assumed  "  theory  could  have  led  the  author  so  far 
astray. 

(III.)  Again,  Dr.  Kuenen  says  (Vol.  I.,  p.  325),  "  In 
David's  days,  no  one  thought  of  either  the  descendants 
of  Aaron  or  the  Levites  being  the  only  persons  compe- 
tent to  discharge  the  functions  of  priests."  This  is  a 
remarkable  statement  to  make,  when  not  the  name  of 
a  person  acting  as  priest  is  mentioned  who  is  not  a 
descendant  of  Aaron.  The  legitimate  inference  is  that, 
where  names  are  not  mentioned,  the  "  priests  "  who 
are  officiating  at  the  altar  are  the  posterity  of  Aaron. 
Priests  and  their  services  are  mentioned  frequently 
during  the  reign  of  David  by  the  writer  of  the  Books 
of  Samuel  and  Kings,  and  not  a  hint  is  given  that  they 
are  not  Aaronic. 

(IV.)   Dr.  Kuenen  says  (Vol.  I.,  p.  208):  ''In  the 


70  INTRODUCTORY. 

eighth  century  B.C.,  the  prophet  of  Jahveh  has  become  a 
writer. ...  It  does  not  appear  that  the  older  prophets  .  .  . 
thought  of  writing  down  what  they  had  spoken."  Yet 
we  read  that  the  '*  acts  of  David  and  Solomon,"  in  the 
ninth  and  tenth  centuries  B.C.,  were  "written  by  Na- 
than, the  prophet,"  and  also  "  in  the  visions  of  Iddo, 
the  seer,"  and  also  in  "  the  book  of  the  prophet  Gad, 
David's  seer"  (I.  Chronicles  xxix,,  29;  II.  Chronicles 
ix.,  29).  The  only  marvel  is  that  so  much,  not  that  so 
little,  of  the  early  miscellaneous  literature  of  the  He- 
brews was  preserved,  when  we  remember  the  fortune 
of  that  people. 

(V.)  Dr.  Kuenen  says  (Vol.  I,,  p.  273),  "  Probably 
not  one  of  the  Psalms  is  from  David's  hand."  So 
destructive  a  critic  as  Hitzig  claims  that  he  wrote  ten 
certainly,  perhaps  more.  And  Ewald  claims  fifteen, 
and  probably  several  others.  Davidson  claims  still 
more.  So  does  Eichorn,  and  Dr.  Noyes,  also.  A 
dozen  eminent  Hebrew  scholars  might  be  named  who 
believe  that  David  wrote  from  twenty  to  eighty  of  the 
Psalms;  but  it  is  not  necessary.  Every  student  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures  knows  them.  But  general 
readers  are  widely  and  sadly  misled  by  such  state- 
ments, and  judicious,  reliable  scholars  do  not  make 
them. 

(VI.)  Dr.  Kuenen  is  very  confident  that  he  can 
pick  out  the  portions  of  the  "  Book  of  Origins,"  or  the 
Elohim  document,  from  Exodus  —  Numbers;  and  he 
confides  in  the  accuracy  of  his  dissection  with  an  assur- 
ance which  is  surprising  to  one  who  has  made  the  sub- 
ject a  study.  The  fact  is,  no  confidence  can  be  placed 
in  any  of  these  attempts  to  find  and  define  the  sup- 
posed  documents  of   which   some  writers  affirm  thai 


KUENEN's   religion   of   ISRAEL.  71 

these  books  are  composed.  We  have  given  the  subject 
a  careful  and  most  minute  study,  and  we  say  without 
hesitation  that  all  these  attempts  are  abortive.  Some 
specimens  will  be  given  taken  from  Kuenen  (Vol.  II., 
p.  163—).  "Exodus  xii.,  1-23,  28,  37  (?),  40-51,  are 
from  his  [Elohist's]  hand."  Now,  this  writer  calls  the 
Supreme  Being,  in  Hebrew,  Elohim,  God,  as  distin- 
guished from  the  later  writer  who  calls  the  Supreme 
Being,  in  Hebrew,  Jehovah,  Lord.  This  is  a  "  chief 
characteristic  "  of  his  style.  In  this  passage,  quoted 
by  Dr.  Kuenen  as  written  by  the  Elohist,  the  name 
"  Jehovah  "  is  used  fifteen  times  and  "  Elohim  "  not 
once.  In  another  passage,  "  Exodus  xxv.,  1  ;  xxxi., 
17,"  Jehovah  is  used  forty  times  and  Elohim  but  three 
times.  Theodore  Parker  says,  "  1  would  rather  con- 
sider the  whole  passage  as  Jehovistic."  Again,  "  Exo- 
dus xxxv.-xl.,"  Jehovah  is  used  thirty-three  times  and 
Elohim  07ice.  Theodore  Parker  says,  "  To  me,  this 
passage  seems  Jehovistic  throughout."  Again,  "  Le- 
viticus viii.-x.,"  Jehovah  is  used  forty  times,  Elohim 
not  once.  Again,  "  Numbers  xv.-xix.,"  Jehovah  is 
used  fifty-seven  times  and  Elohim  twice.  Once  more, 
"  Numbers  xxvi.-xxxi.,"  Jehovah  is  used  fifty-two 
times  and  Elohim  but  once.  It  is  not  necessary  to  ex- 
tend this  note  further.  The  "chief  characteristic"  of 
the  Elohim  document  almost  entirely  disappears  in  the 
passages  attributed  to  the  Elohist  writer  by  Dr.  Kue- 
nen, and  the  "  chief  characteristic  "  of  the  Jehovistic 
writer  is  found  in  them.  This  is  sufficient  to  show  the 
fallacy  of  the  whole  criticism  ;  for,  if  the  "  chief  char- 
acteristic "  of  one  of  the  theoretical  documents  is  found 
to  be  almost  universally  used  in  the  other  in  practice, 
either  x^np^  theory  or  the  practice  is  sadly  at  fault. 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 


INTRODUCTION. 

The  Pentateuch,  as  well  as  other  writings  claiming  a 
high  antiquity,  has  been  made  to  pass  the  fiery  ordeal 
of  criticism  since  the  revival  of  Oriental  learning,  and, 
like  not  a  few  of  them,  has  been  denied  the  venerable 
age  which  had  before  been  awarded  to  it.  I  do  not 
complain  that  these  writings  have  been  tried  in  so  puri- 
fying a  fire.  Nor  will  I  complain  that  there  has  been 
some  rashness  manifested  in  this  process  of  purification, 
since,  in  all  first  attempts,  more  or  less  imperfection 
must  exist.  But  I  have  no  doubt  that  it  will  be  found 
in  the  end,  after  thorough  scholarship  and  laborious  re- 
search have  done  their  work,  that  many  of  those  writ- 
ings, whose  antiquity  has  been  denied,  will  again  be  in- 
stalled in  their  original  places  of  reverence  and  age. 
The  tendency  is  in  that  direction,  even  at  this  time ; 
and  it  will  grow  stronger  and  stronger  as  the  discoveries 
of  scholars  in  the  ruins  of  the  ancient  cities  give  deci- 
sive evidence  of  the  general,  and  sometimes  minute,  ac- 
curacy of  the  accounts  which  these  books  contain,  and 
of  a  literature  as  abundant,  as  various,  and  as  copious 
as  is  found  in  the  Pentateuch. 

There  was  a  time,  and  it  is  not  long  since,  when  the 
history  of  Herodotus  was  looked  upon  as  largely  myth- 


76  A  STUDY  OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

ical,  as  composed  of  "  tales  imposed  upon  the  credulity 
of  the  Father  of  History  " ;  but  almost  every  modern 
discovery  goes  to  confirm  the  general  accuracy  of  He- 
rodotus, and  convict  the  incredulity  of  his  critics.  The 
same  is  true  of  other  ancient  documents,  and  frag- 
ments of  documents,  which  have  come  down  to  our 
day.  Thorough  modern  research  seems  to  be  fast  con- 
firming the  old  opinion  respecting  the  antiquity  and 
authenticity  of  the  writings  which  claim  to  be  the  work 
of  ancient  men. 

The  Old  Testament  writings  have  shared  to  some 
extent  the  fate  of  the  writings  of  Herodotus  and  other 
ancient  authors.  Their  historical  parts  have  been  put 
to  the  test  of  criticism,  and  have  been  declared  want- 
ing. But  recent  discoveries  and  more  thorough  exam- 
ination are  confirming  their  general  accuracy,  and  win- 
ning back  to  them  a  continually  increasing  portion  of 
the  confidence  which  they  formerly  commanded.  Es- 
pecially is  this  true  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  writings 
of  Moses,  as  they  are  usually  called,  have  been  sub- 
jected to  the  closest  scrutiny  by  the  most  profound 
scholars.  Perhaps  no  work  claiming  its  origin  in  re- 
mote antiquity  has  passed  through  such  an  ordeal,  and 
with  such  various  results.  In  the  first  instance,  a  very 
modern  date  was  given  to  it.  The  age  of  Ezra  was 
reported  by  some  as  that  in  which  it  first  saw  the  light. 
The  date  of  its  origin  has,  however,  been  receding ;  and 
generally  an  antiquity  considerably  higher  is  now  con- 
ceded to  it  by  most  of  the  same  school  of  critics. 

But  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  write  a  history  of  the 
progress  of  criticism  upon  the  age  and  authenticity  of 
the  Pentateuch.     I  have  made  these  remarks  to  notify 


INTRODUCTION.  77 

my  readers  of  the  present  tendency  of  that  kind  of 
criticism,  which  has  been,  by  some  defenders  of  the 
ancient  records,  styled  "  destructive,"  that  they  may  be 
better  able  to  appreciate  the  force  of  the  arguments 
which  I  propose  to  adduce  in  this  study,  to  show  that 
the  Pentateuch  is  of  the  age  of  Moses;  that  there  are 
reasons,  by  no  means  without  weight,  for  the  opinion 
that  the  first  five  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  called 
the  Pentateuch,  were  in  the  main  compiled  and  written 
either  by  Moses  himself  or  by  one  or  more  of  his 
contemporaries,  perhaps  under  his  direction,  or,  at  the 
latest,  by  his  immediate  successors.  It  is  no  part  of 
my  plan  to  prove  the  authenticity  of  these  books, —  the 
truth  of  the  statements  made  in  them, —  though  inci- 
dentally I  shall  touch  that  subject.  My  object  is  a 
single  and  simple  one.  I  wish  to  present  the  reasons 
which  have  induced  many  of  the  most  eminent  schol- 
ars and  the  great  mass  of  believers,  so  far  as  they  have 
had  reasons  to  give  for  their  belief,  for  attributing  the 
Pentateuch  to  an  author  or  authors  of  the  Mosaic  Age. 
Nor  do  I  propose  to  show  or  maintain  that  these  writ- 
ings have  come  down  to  us  without  damage,  in  their 
original  state  precisely.  I  shall  assume  that  they  have 
met  with  the  same  fate  in  their  transmission  to  our 
age  which  has  befallen  all  other  ancient  writings. 
Nor  shall  I  claim  for  them  any  inspiration,  in  any  sense 
of  that  word.  I  shall  examine  them  as  I  would  any 
other  writings  of  antiquity. 

I  propose  this  only  as  my  theme, —  to  examine  the 
evidence  of  the  origin  and  age  of  the  first  five  books 
in  our  Bible,  commonly  called  the  Pentateuch.  I  call 
this  essay  a  Study,  because  it  is  the  result  of  my  own 


78  A   STUDY  OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

personal  investigation  extending  over  a  period  ap- 
proaching half  a  century,  and  during  a  portion  of 
which  time  my  duty  as  teacher  at  Meadville  required 
me  to  read  the  Pentateuch,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the 
Hebrew  literature  contained  in  the  Old  Testament, 
annually  with  the  students  ;  and  nothing  has  surprised 
or  pained  me  more  of  late  years  than  the  careless  facil- 
ity with  which  even  men  having  the  reputation  of 
scholarship  copy  and  adopt  the  statements  of  others, 
especially  if  they  have  come  over  the  sea,  without  ver- 
ifying them  ;  and  are  not  only  led  far  astray  themselves, 
which  would  be  little,  but  they  lead  far  astray  multi- 
tudes of  others  who  confide  in  them,  just  as  if  they 
were  authority,  and  knew  themselves,  by  their  own 
studies,  whereof  they  affirm.  The  credulous,  confiding 
public  is  flooded  with  books  and  pamphlets  written 
without  knowledge  and  published  without  thought.  It 
is  a  very  easy  thing  to  do  to  rewrite  a  dry,  dull  book 
into  a  fresh  and  attractive  one,  and  to  scatter  broadcast 
in  volume  or  pamphlet,  in  essay  or  sermon,  the  crude, 
wild,  baseless  theories  and  hypotheses  of  persons  who, 
like  the  old  Athenians,  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  tell 
some  new  thing,  or  startle  men  with  some  astonishing 
discovery,  or  mortify  them  with  some  bold  irreverence. 
No  responsibility  seems  to  be  felt  for  the  influence  of 
opinions,  and  little  regard  is  paid  oftentimes  to  truth. 
There  is  hot  haste  to  get  every  new  hypothesis,  the 
last  guess,  before  the  public.  It  goes  up  like  a  rocket, 
fizzing  and  sparkling,  to  the  admiration  of  the  on-look- 
ers,  but  soon  grows  dim,  fades  away,  disappears,  and 
disappoints. 

No   such   charge  as  haste  or  want   of  care  can  be 


INTRODUCTION.  79 

attributed  to  the  preparation  and  publication  of  this 
Study.  Want  of  skill,  want  of  knowledge,  may  be  its 
vital,  fatal  defects.  Had  I  known  more,  I  should  have 
escaped  my  errors ;  had  I  delayed  publication  longer, 
I  might  have  been  wiser,  and  not  have  printed  my  con- 
clusions. Cut  such  as  I  have,  after  these  long  years 
of  inquiry,  I  give,  in  the  hope  that  my  contribution  to 
this  branch  of  Biblical  criticism  will  not  be  wholly  in 
vain. 

Before  entering  upon  the  examination  of  the  subject 
in  hand,  however,  it  will  be  necessary  to  give  an  outline 
of  the  construction  and  contents  of  the  work  which  we 
are  to  examine,  that  the  course  of  our  inquiry  may  be 
clearly  understood.  The  Pentateuch  is  composed  of 
a  sketch  of  the  lives  of  the  three  great  ancestors  of 
the  Hebrew  people, —  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  Gen- 
esis xii.-l., —  preceded  by  a  sketch  of  the  creation  and 
the  flood,  and  genealogies  of  the  descendants  of  Adam 
in  the  line  of  Abraham  to  him  (Genesis  i.-xi.) ;  and 
followed,  after  an  interval  of  centuries,  with  an  account 
of  the  residence  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt  and  their 
escape  from  bondage  to  Mount  Sinai  (Exodus  i.-xix.). 
All  this  is  historical,  and,  excepting  what  is  in  Exodus, 
relates  to  what  transpired  before  the  birth  of  Moses, 
and  may  have  been  the  work  of  some  other  person, 
even  after  his  death.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  what  is 
contained  in  Exodus  up  to  the  twentieth  chapter  was 
written  by  him.  Nor  by  any  one  else  was  it  written  at 
the  time  the  events  recorded  took  place,  and  may 
not  have  been  written  for  a  century  or  more  after- 
ward. Moses  and  all  the  other  leaders  were  too 
busily  engaged  in  rescuing  the  people  from  the  Egyp- 


8o  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

tians,  and  providing  for  their  wants  and  organizing  them 
into  some  orderly  body,  to  undertake  any  literary 
labors.  The  laws  given  and  the  ritual  prescribed  and 
the  place  of  worship  erected,  and  its  furniture,  and  the 
priest's  duties  and  garments,  are  described  and  re- 
corded. (Exodus  XX. —  Numbers  X.,  I  o).  This  portion 
was  written  as  the  laws  were  given  and  as  the  events 
transpired,  day  by  day,  at  Sinai.  Whatever  is  written 
respecting  their  wanderings,  till  they  arrived  on  the  east- 
ern bank  of  the  Jordan  (Numbers  x.,  i  i-xxxvi,),  was 
written  as  the  events  took  place,  either  by  Moses  or 
by  his  scribe,  or  by  both.  The  closing  addresses  by 
Moses,  and  the  amendments  and  additions  to  the  laws 
contained  in  them,  were  written  by  Moses  himself  or 
under  his  direction,  by  his  scribes  (Deuteronomy  i.- 
xxxi.).  There  is  no  conclusive  internal  evidence  that 
he  did  not  compose  the  song  contained  in  the  thirty- 
second  chapter,  and  the  blessings  in  the  thirty-third ;  but 
some  other  hand  of  course  gave  the  account  of  his 
death  and  burial  in  the  thirty-fourth  chapter.  The 
whole  Pentateuch,  however,  was  written  before  any 
other  books  that  have  come  down  to  us,  as  the  style, 
the  "  archaic  language,"  shows,  and  will  be  illustrated 
hereafter. 

This  inquiry  respecting  the  origin  and  age  of  the 
Pentateuch  may  be  pursued,  if  one  pleases,  as  a  purely 
literary  one ;  for  the  Mosaic  dispensation  is  not  ours, 
nor  is  the  Law  our  rule  of  life.  Whatever  may  prove 
true  in  regard  to  the  Pentateuch,  our  relations  to  God, 
to  Christ,  and  to  man,  are  unchanged.  Whether  the 
Law  was  of  human  or  of  divine  origin,  we  are,  as 
Christians,  to  obey  Christ,  and  accept  the  "  substance," 


INTRODUCTION.  8 1 

of  which  the  Law,  at  the  best,  was  only  a  "  shadow." 
As  a  purely  literary  inquiry,  therefore,  I  shall  discuss 
them. 

Three  distinct  questions  present  themselves  for  con- 
sideration in  opening  our  inquiry :  Is  the  Pentateuch 
as  old  as  the  time  of  Moses?  Is  Moses  its  author.^ 
Does  it  contain  a  reliable  account  of  the  revelation 
which  God  made  to  the  Jews  ?  The  first  of  these  ques- 
tions may  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and  yet  both 
the  others  be  answered  in  the  negative.  The  first  two 
may  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  last  in  the 
negative.  The  second  may  be  answered  in  the  nega- 
tive, and  the  first  and  last  in  the  affirmative.  We  can 
suppose  Moses  wrote  the  book  and  wrote  incorrectly. 
We  can  suppose  it  to  be  of  the  Mosaic  Age,  and  yet 
not  written  by  him.  We  can  suppose  that,  though  not 
written  by  him,  it  contains  the  truth. 

In  this  Study,  I  propose  to  examine  and  answer  only 
the  first  question  :  Is  the  Pentateuch  as  old  as  the  time 
of  Moses?  The  inquiry  will  be  divided  into  two 
parts  :  (i)  the  historical  itidications  of  the  existence  of  the 
book  ;  and  (2)  the  evidence  to  be  derived  fro7n  its  internal 
character^ — or  the  external  and  internal  evidence.  I 
shall  commence  with  the  former. 


PART  I. 

EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 

In  tracing  the  historical  references  to  this  work,  we 
must  have  regard  to  the  character  of  the  writings  in 
which  the  references  are  contained,  and  to  the  state  of 
mind  whicli  the  people  were  in  to  whom  these  writings 
were  addressed.  Where  a  people  are  well  acquainted 
with  a  book,  the  references  to  it  will  be  incidental 
rather  than  direct,  implied  rather  than  expressed.  The 
Pentateuch,  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  was  so  well 
known  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  be  definite  in  de- 
scribing the  book  when  references  were  made  to  it. 
The  copy  used,  the  page  from  which  the  quotation  was 
taken,  or  to  which  reference  was  made,  were  not  stated. 
The  writer  or  speaker  thought  he  had  been  sufficiently 
explicit  if  he  had  said  "The  Law"  or  "The  Law  of 
Moses  "  or  "The  Book  of  the  Law."  More  frequently 
in  that  age,  the  Pentateuch  was  called  only  "  The  Law," 
Let  us,  then,  trace  back  from  this  period,  in  which  the 
Pentateuch  was  undeniably  called  "  The  Law "  when 
reference  was  made  to  it,  indications  of  its  existence  in 
still  earlier  periods.  And  if  we  find  references  made 
to  "  The  Law  "  and  to  "  The  Book  of  the  Law  "  and 
to  "  The  Law  of  Moses "  and  to  "  The  Law  of  the 
Lord,"  we  are  bound  to  infer,  unless  overpowering 
reasons  to  the  contrary  can  be  given,  that  the  Penta- 
teuch is  the  book  referred  to ;  and  especially  are  we 


FROM   CHRIST   TO    MALACHI.  83 

bound  to  infer  this,  if  quotations  are  made  from  the 
book  referred  to  which  are  contained  in  the  Pentateuch 
as  we  now  have  it,  or  as  it  existed  at  the  time  the  quo- 
tations were  made.  These  statements,  if  reduced  to 
a  canon  of  criticism,  would  give  the  following  law  of 
historical  inquiry,  which  J  believe  to  be  correct; 
namely,  if  we  find  that  an  ancient  book  is  referred  to,  in 
all  later  works,  by  the  name  which  is  now  given  to  it,  and 
that  references  are  made  to  it,  and  that  quotations  are 
made  from  its  contents,  such  substantially  as  we  now  find 
ill  itf  then  the  proper,  the  necessary  conclusion  is  that  the 
book  is  the  same  as  that  which  we  possess. 

This  law  of  historical  criticism  I  intend  to  apply  to 
this  inquiry  respecting  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch 
in  substantially  the  same  form  as  that  in  which  it  existed 
in  the  time  of  Christ.  I  propose  to  go  back,  step  by 
step,  examining  all  the  writings  relating  to  the  subject 
which  have  come  down  to  our  time,  that  we  may  learn 
whether  they  refer  to  the  "  Book  of  Moses,"  and,  if  so, 
in  what  manner.  If  we  find  such  a  book  alluded  to, 
named,  quoted  from,  in  the  writings  which  have  come 
down  to  us  from  the  Jewish  people,  then  the  conclusion 
is  that  the  book  is  at  least  as  old  as  any  of  these  writ- 
ings, just  as  a  traveller  who  has  ascended  the  Nile  from 
Alexandria  to  its  outflow  from  a  lake  in  central  Africa 
would  be  sure  he  had  found  its  source, 

SECTION    I.       FROM    CHRIST   TO    MALACHI. 

I  begin  with  the  first  Book  of  Esdras,  which  was 
probably  written  a  short  time  before  the  birth  of  Christ. 
It  speaks  of  the  "Book  of  Moses,"  of  "The  Law  of 
Moses,"  of   "The  Law  of   the  Lord,"  and  of  "The 


84  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

Law."  That  in  the  last  instance  a  book  is  meant  is 
clear  from  the  rest  of  the  passage :  after  Esdras  had 
brought  "  The  Law  of  Moses,"  "  When  he  had  opened 
the  Law,  they  stood  up  "  (ix.,  46). 

The  first  Book  of  Maccabees  was  written  about  one 
hundred  years  before  Christ.  "  The  Book  of  the  Law  " 
is  spoken  of  (iii.,  48),  and  "  The  Law "  is  very  fre- 
quently alluded  to  in  it.  The  Book  of  Fxclesiasticus 
was  written  about  a  century  before  the  Book  of  Macca- 
bees, according  to  the  more  probable  opinion.  In  this, 
we  find  reference  to  "The  Law  which  Moses  com- 
manded "  (xxiv.,  23),  to  "The  Book  of  the  Covenant  of 
the  Most  High  God,"  to  "  The  Law  of  God,"  and  to 
"The  Law"  very  frequently.  The  translator  of  this 
book,  who  lived  about  seventy  years  later,  speaks  of 
"The  Law,'*  referring  to  the  Pentateuch,  five  times  in 
his  short  preface.  One  hundred  years  earlier  than  this 
book  was  written,  the  Septuagint  translation  was  made  ; 
and,  one  hundred  years  before  the  Septuagint  translation 
was  made,  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  was  in  existence. 
How  much  earlier  than  this  it  existed,  1  do  not  now  at- 
tempt to  decide.  But  that  it  existed  as  early  as  four 
hundred  years  before  Christ  there  is  no  good  reason  to 
doubt.  I  have  now  gone  back  to  the  time  of  the 
Prophet  Malachi.  From  his  time  down  to  the  time  of 
the  son  of  Sirach,  who  composed  the  Book  of  Ecclesi- 
asticus,  we  have  probably  no  Jewish  writings. 

What  they  were  accustomed  to  call  the  Pentateuch, 
when  they  referred  to  it  by  name,  we  cannot  tell.  It 
was  in  existence  during  this  period  we  know ;  for  the 
Septuagint  translation  was  made,  and  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  was  in  existence.     Back  to  the  time  of  Mai- 


FROM    MALACHI    TO    EZRA.  85 

achi,  it  is  very  easy  to  trace  the  use  of  the  Pentateuch 
as  it  existed  in  the  time  of  Christ.  There  can  be  no 
mistake  respecting  it. 

SECTION    ir.       FROM    MALACHI   TC    EZRA. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  books  which  are  extant  which 
were  written  after  the  return  from  the  captivity,  or  rather 
those  which  ^'■/W  an  account  of  the  nation  after  its  return 
from  the  captivity  to  tlie  time  of  Malachi ;  for  I  will 
omit  a  consideration  of  the  testimony  of  the  Books  of 
Chronicles  for  the  present.  The  prophecies  of  Mala- 
chi, Zechariah,  and  Haggai,  and  the  histories  contained 
in  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  cover  a  period  of  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years,  extending  back  to  five  hundred 
and  thirty-two  years  before  Christ.  Malachi  exhorts  the 
people  to  "  remember  the  Law  of  Moses."  He  accuses 
the  priests  of  being  "partial  in  the  Law,"  and  of  caus- 
ing many  to  stumble  at  "The  Law,"  and  tells  them  that 
the  people  should  seek  "  The  Law  "  at  the  mouth  of  the 
priest  (iv.,  4 ;  ii.,  7,  8,  9).  Haggai  is  directed  by  the 
Lord  to  ask  the  "priest  concerning  the  Law"  (ii.,  11). 
Zechariah  accuses  the  people  of  making  "  their  hearts 
as  an  adamant  stone,  lest  they  should  hear  the  Law  " 
(vii.,  12).  The  particular  sins  of  which  these  prophets 
reproach  the  people  are  violations  of  precepts  contained 
in  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  virtues  which  they  approve 
are  founded  on  obedience  to  the  laws  found  in  it. 

But  we  find  much  more  distinct  reference  to  the  Pen- 
tateuch in  the  Books  of  Nehemiah  and  Ezra  than  in 
these  poetical  books.  In  the  eighth  chapter  of  the 
Book  of  Nehemiah  there  is  a  very  full  account  of  "The 
Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses."     A  summary  may  be  given 


86  A   STUDY    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

in  a  few  words,  in  which  the  various  names  by  which 
this  book  was  called  may  be  included.  The  people 
spake  to  "  Ezra  the  scribe  to  bring  the  Book  of  the  Law 
of  Moses,  .  .  .  and  he  brought  the  Law  .  .  .  and  read 
therein,  .  .  .  and  the  ears  of  all  the  people  were  atten- 
tive unto  the  Book  of  the  Law.  .  .  .  And  Ezra  opened 
the  Book,"  and  he  appointed  many  others  who  "caused 
the  people  to  understand  the  Law.  ...  So  they  read  in 
the  Book  of  the  Law  of  God  distinctly.  .  .  .  And  the 
people  wept  when  they  heard  the  words  of  the  Law.  .  .  . 
Also  he  read  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  God."  In  the 
tenth  chapter,  we  read  of  "  God's  law  given  by  the  hand 
of  Moses,"  and  of  that  which  "  is  written  in  the  Law." 
In  the  thirteenth  chapter,  it  is  said,  "They  read  in  the 
Book  of  Moses."  These  passages  show  us  most  clearly 
that  this  book  was  called  by  different  names,  and  that 
one  of  them  was  simply  "  The  Law."  The  passages 
quoted  in  Nehemiah  from  "  The  Book  of  the  Law  "  are 
found  in  the  Pentateuch.  Indeed,  the  Samaritan  Pen- 
tateuch was  nearly  contemporaneous  with  Nehemiah,  as 
some  of  the  ablest  critics  contend,  if  it  does  not  date 
back  many  years  earlier,  as  is  not  improbable,  to  say  the 
least  of  it. 

The  Book  of  Ezra,  which  contains  a  history  of  a  still 
earlier  period,  is  equally  clear  and  explicit  in  its  refer- 
ences to  the  Book  of  Moses.  It  is  said  that  they  "  of- 
fered burnt-offering,  as  it  is  written  in  the  Law  of  Mo- 
ses "  (iii.,  2) ;  that  they  "  set  the  priests,  ...  as  it  is 
written  in  the  Book  of  Moses  "  (vi.,  18).  We  read  that 
Ezra  was  a  "ready  scribe  in  the  Law  of  Moses,"  and 
that  he  "prepared  his  heart  to  seek  the  Law  of  the 
Lord  "  (vii.j  6,  10).     Strange  wives  are  said  to  have  been 


FROM   THE   CAPTIVITY  TO    DAVID.  87 

put  away,  according  to  "The  Law  "  (x.,  3).  This  Ezra, 
a  learned  scribe  in  "The  Law,"  is  said,  in  the  history 
which  gives  an  account  of  his  deeds,  to  have  instructed 
the  people  in  the  Law,  and  to  have  established  the  wor- 
ship as  required  by  the  Law.  He  is  evidently  fully  hon- 
ored in  the  book ;  but  the  greatest  work  which  tradition 
attributes  to  him  is  not  alluded  to,  not  hinted  at  in  the 
most  remote  manner,  I  refer  to  the  work  of  recovering 
the  Law,  and  putting  in  order  its  commands,  after  they 
had  been  lost  during  the  captivity.  Of  this  work,  noth- 
ing is  said,  nothing  is  hinted.  "  The  Book  of  the  Law  " 
is  spoken  of  as  something  in  existence,  not  as  something 
which  Ezra  composed  or  compiled  or  found.  Whatever 
may  have  been  its  origin,  Ezra  was  not  its  author.  And, 
should  there  be  no  evidence  of  its  existence  before  the 
time  of  Ezra  or  before  the  captivity,  it  would  still  be  true 
that  we  have  not  a  shadow  of  historical  evidence  that 
Ezra  was  the  auLhor  of  the  book,  but,  rather,  most  abun- 
dant evidence  should  we  have  to  the  contrary.  The 
quotations  which  are  made  from  this  "Book  of  the 
Law  "  are  taken  from  the  Pentateuch  as  we  now  have 
it ;  and  the  historical  proof  is  strong  that  he  read  to  the 
people  the  book  which  has  come  down  to  us.  So  far, 
the  historical  notices  of  the  book  are  all  that  could  be 
expected  under  the  circumstances.  No  work  of  so  high 
antiquity  has  come  down  to  us  with  so  good  evidence  of 
its  genuineness. 

SECTION    III.       FROM   THE   CAPTIVITY   TO  DAVID. 

A  broader  field  now  opens  before  us,  and  more  diffi- 
cult to  traverse.  Are  there  any  traces  of  the  existence 
of  this  book  at  an  earlier  period  ?     Are  there  any  refer- 


88  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

ences  to  such  a  work  in  the  earlier  writings  of  the  Jew- 
ish nation,  or  in  writings  of  the  period  of  Ezra  which 
relate  to  the  earlier  times  of  the  people  ?  This  is  the 
question  which  is  now  to  be  answered. 

Before  proceeding  to  answer  the  question  proposed, 
however,  it  is  necessary  to  notice  a  few  particulars 
touching  the  writings  which  have  come  down  to  us. 
They  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  the  poetical 
and  the  historical.  Respecting  the  latter  class,  little 
or  nothing  need  be  said  by  way  of  explanation.  In 
poetical  books,  we  do  not  expect  such  explicit  refer- 
ences to  books,  especially  to  those  which  are  familiar 
to  us,  as  in  prose  compositions.  How  few  references 
to  the  New  Testament  of  such  a  nature  as  you  will  see 
in  a  librarian's  catalogue,  or  a  critic's  treatise,  will  you 
find  in  all  the  poetical  works  in  the  English  language  ! 
Even  in  our  sacred  poetry,  no  such  specific  titles  of 
the  New  Testament  are  found.  "  God  in  the  gospel  of 
his  Son  "  is,  I  think,  the  most  specific  reference  in  one 
of  our  hymn-books.  And,  even  in  sermons,  it  is  not 
often  that  book  and  chapter  and  verse  are  referred  to. 
It  is  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  if  there  is  such  a  refer- 
ence or  allusion  to  the  Gospels  as  enables  us  to  per- 
ceive that  such  is  the  poet's  or  preacher's  intent.  So 
in  the  poetical  books  of  the  period  preceding  and  dur- 
ing the  captivity.  All  that  we  can  expect  to  find,  and 
all  that  we  need  to  find,  to  prove  the  existence  of  the 
"Book  of  the  Law,"  which  Ezra  read  and  taught,  is 
such  allusion  to  its  contents  and  spirit,  and  such  use 
of  its  words  and  j^hrases,  as  to  show  that  it  was  in  the 
poet's  mind.  If  we  demand  more  proof  than  this,  we 
demand  what,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  we 
ou;;ht  !;ot  to  expect. 


FROM   THF   CAPTIVITY   TO   DAVID.  89 

Respecting  the  historical  books,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  a  period  of  probably  one  thousand  years 
is  covered  by  the  Books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings, 
the  whole  contents  of  which  would  not  make  a  volume 
larger  than  the  fifth  volume  of  Bancroft's  History  of 
the  United  States,  which  embraces  a  period  of  but  three 
years.  The  Books  of  Chronicles  cover  a  portion  of 
the  same  period,  beginning  with  David,  and  giving 
only  brief  genealogies  of  what  preceded  his  time. 
Surely,  if  "  The  Law  "  was  really  a  well-known  book,  we 
should  expect  to  find  but  very  few  specific  references 
to  it  in  these  writings.  None,  indeed,  should  we  expect 
to  find  there,  unless  something  very  closely  connected 
with  the  book  itself  should  call  for  them.  All  that 
we  can  expect  is  such  a  reference  to  manners,  customs, 
institutions,  duties,  as  shall  indicate  an  existing,  funda- 
mental law,  such  as  was  contained  in  Ezra's  "  Book  of 
the  Law,"  which  he  read  to  the  people,  and  taught 
them  to  obey,  as  having  been  given  by  Moses  in  con- 
formity to  the  divine  command.  More  reference  than 
this  to  the  Pentateuch,  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  cannot  be 
expected  in  these  books.  Were  there  more,  I  should 
not  be  surprised  to  find  an  argument,  drawn  from  their 
very  frequency,  against  the  reliableness  of  the  books 
themselves,  such  as  is  now  drawn  against  the  reliable- 
ness of  Chronicles,  because  the  writer  has  dwelt  at 
greater  length  on  ecclesiastical  affairs  than  the  writer 
of  the  Books  of  the  Kings  has  seen  fit  to  do.  Let  us 
bear  in  mind,  then,  as  we  proceed  to  examine  these 
books,  both  poetical  and  historical,  that  we  must  not 
expect  more,  nor  a  different  kind  of,  references  to  the 
*'  Book  of   the  Law "  than   the   circumstances   of   the 


90  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

case  authorize.  On  the  supposition  that  the  Penta- 
teuch did  exist  as  early  as  the  time  of  David,  we  can- 
not expect  reasonably  any  more  evidence  of  the  fact 
from  these  Jewish  writings  than  I  have  before  indi- 
cated. 

I.  Evidences  from  the  Historical  Writings. — In  the 
first  place,  I  will  examine  the  historical  writings  which 
treat  of  the  period  before  the  captivity  from  the  time 
of  David ;  and,  as  some  objection  has  been  raised 
against  the  reliableness  of  the  Books  of  the  Chroni- 
cles, I  will  first  examine  the  Books  of  the  Kings.  I 
will  mention  the  passages  in  which  "The  Book  of  the 
Law  "  is  referred  to,  and  then  I  will  quote  those  words 
and  phrases  which  are  evidently  taken  from  that  book. 
This  division  of  the  evidence  seems  necessary  in  order 
to  bring  out  its  force  fully.  I  will  then  turn  to  the 
Books  of  the  Chronicles,  and  inquire  whether  there  is 
such  an  obvious  prejudice  in  the  writer's  mind  respect- 
ing this  Book  of  the  Law  as  to  make  void  all  his  state- 
ments in  regard  to  it. 

In  the  Books  of  the  Kings,  we  find  the  following 
references  to  the  Pentateuch.  In  the  time  of  Josiah, 
whose  reign  closed  twenty-three  years  before  the  cap- 
tivity, we  read  (II.  Kings  xxii.)  that  Hilkiah,  the  high 
priest,  "found  the  Book  of  the  Law  in  the  house  of 
the  Lord,"  which  was  then  undergoing  repairs.  When 
the  king  "  heard  the  words  of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  he 
rent  his  clothes  "  ;  for  the  people,  both  under  the  reign 
of  his  father  and  that  of  his  grandfather  for  sixty 
years,  had  disregarded  the  Law  utterly,  having  erected 
idols  in  the  Temple  for  the  people,  and  having  endeav- 
ored by  the  utmost  cruelties  to  exterminate  the  worship 


EVIDENCES    FROM    THE    HISTORICAL    WRITINGS.       9 1 

of  Jehovah.  And  in  the  twenty-third  chapter  we  read 
that  the  king  "  read  all  the  words  of  this  covenant  that 
were  written  in  this  book."  And  he  "  commanded  all 
the  people  to  keep  the  passover,  as  it  is  written  in  the 
book  of  this  covenant."  And  he  "turned  to  the  Lord 
with  all  his  soul  and  with  all  his  might,  according  to 
all  the  Law  of  Moses." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  same  name  is  given  to  the 
book  found  by  Hilkiah  which  was  given  to  the  book 
which  Ezra  used  in  instructing  the  people.  Some  diffi- 
culties, however,  have  been  started  respecting  this  trans- 
action which  demand  a  moment's  notice.  It  has  been 
asked  significantly  how  it  was  possible  for  Josiah  to  be 
entirely  ignorant  of  the  contents  of  the  Law  of  Moses. 
It  has  always  appeared  to  me  that  the  answer  is  very 
easy,  when  we  consider  the  condition  of  the  kingdom. 
Manasseh,  the  grandfather  of  Josiah,  had  reigned  most 
wickedly  for  fifty-five  years.  He  had  introduced  all 
the  "abominations  of  the  heathen,"  had  "built  altars 
in  the  house  of  the  Lord,"  and  had  built  "  altars  for 
all  the  host  of  heaven  in  the  two  courts  of  the  house 
of  the  Lord."  He  also  made  his  son  pass  through 
fire,  and  "  dealt  with  familiar  spirits  and  wizards,"  and 
"shed  innocent  blood  very  much,  till  he  had  filled 
Jerusalem  from  one  end  to  the  other."  And  Amon, 
his  son,  the  father  of  Josiah,  in  his  short  reign  of  two 
years,  "  forsook  the  Lord  and  walked  in  all  the  way  of 
his  fathers."  So  that  for  fifty-seven  years  the  Law  had 
been  utterly  disregarded,  and  very  probably  all  the 
copies  of  the  Law  on  which  the  wicked  kings  could  lay 
their  hands  had  been  destroyed.  Josiah  came  to  the 
throne  when  he  was  a  mere  child,  only  eiglit  years  of 


92  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

age.  When  he  had  reigned  eighteen  years,  as  some 
maintain,  or  when  he  was  eighteen  years  of  age,  and 
had  reigned  ten  years,  as  others  suppose,  he  appears 
to  have  learned  something  about  the  religion  of  the 
fathers,  and  to  have  commenced  repairs  on  the  Tem- 
ple. The  pious  Jews  would  unquestionably  try  his 
disposition  toward  a  change  from  idol  worship  ;  and, 
when  it  was  found  that  he  was  disposed  to  return  to 
the  worship  of  his  fathers,  a  copy  of  the  Law  was  pro- 
duced for  his  examination.  It  was  very  probably  the 
Temple  copy, —  perhaps  the  autograph  of  Moses  which 
had  been  hidden  by  the  priests  to  keep  it  from  the 
destroying  hands  of  Manasseh.  As  Hilkiah  expresses 
no  surprise  at  finding  the  book,  nor  Shaphan  at  its 
contents,  they  probably  had  arranged  this  matter  so  as 
to  put  this  venerable  copy  into  the  king's  hands.  Tak- 
ing all  these  circumstances  into  the  account,  it  is 
neither  wonderful  that  Josiah  was  overwhelmed  with 
grief  when  the  book  was  read,  nor  that  Hilkiah  should 
have  brought  the  book  from  its  hiding-place  at  this 
time.  It  is  possible,  to  take  another  view,  namely, 
that,  in  removing  the  rubbish  from  the  Temple,  the  lost 
Mosaic  autograph  copy  of  the  Law,  which  was  kept  in 
the  Temple  for  sacred  purposes,  may  have  been  found. 
At  all  events,  there  is  nothing  in  this  account  which 
indicates  that  the  book  was  not  in  existence  before 
this  time,  as  some  have  maintained,  but  quite  the  con- 
trary ;  for  how  could  it  have  been  found  if  it  had  not 
existed  before  the  finding  ?  De  Wette  admits  that  the 
book  here  found  is  the  Pentateuch.  These  are  his 
words :  "  The  discovery  of  the  Book  of  the  Law  in 
the  Temple,  under  Josiah's  reign,  about  624  B.C.,  re- 


EVIDENCES    FROM    THE    HISTORICAL   WRITINGS.       93 

lated  in  II.  Kings  xxii.,  is  the  first  certain  trace  of  tne 
Pentateuch  in  its  present  form."  That  the  Pentateuch 
was  "in  its  present  form  "  in  the  time  of  Josiah  is  suf- 
ficiently clear  from  the  historical  proof  that  we  have 
adduced.  Whether  De  Wette  is  correct  or  not  in  say- 
ing that  it  is  the  "  first  certain  trace  of  it  in  its  present 
form  "  will  soon  appear.* 

In  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  who  preceded  Josiah 
about  one  hundred  years,  we  read  (II.  Kings  xvii.,  13) 
that  the  kingdom  of  Israel  had  neglected  the  covenant 
**  made  with  the  fathers  " ;  and  they  are  exhorted  to 
turn  from  their  evil  ways,  and  to  walk  "  according  to 
all  the  Law."  In  the  thirty-fourth  and  thirty-seventh 
verses,  it  is  stated  that  the  people  "  fear  not  the  Lord, 
neither  do  they  after  their  statutes  or  after  their  ordi- 
nances or  after  the  Law  and  commandment  which  the 

*  It  has  been  objected  to  this  account  of  the  loss  and  recovery  of  the  roll  of 
the  Law  that  it  is  so  highly  improbable  as  to  render  it  incredible,  and  furnish 
evidence  of  its  being  a  forgery.  But  the  historical  scholar  will  recall  cases 
more  wonderful  than  this.  William  Bradford  s  manuscript  History  of  Ply- 
mouth Plantation  was  cited  by  Prince  in  1736,  and  composed  a  part  of  his 
library  deposited  in  the  tower  of  the  Old  South  Church,  Boston,  Mass.  It 
was  last  cited  by  Governor  Hutchinson  in  1767.  It  was  lost,  though  most  dili- 
gent search  was  made  for  it  for  eighty  years,  when  it  was  found  accidentally  in 
England  by  the  Bishop  of  Oxford,  in  the  Fulham  Library,  as  he  was  searching 
for  material  for  his  History  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal   Church    in   America. 

Bradford's  Letter-Book  MS.  was  also  lost  for  many  years.  At  last,  a  portion 
of  it  was  accidentally  found  in  a  grocer's  shop  in  Halifax,  N.S.,  by  James  Clarke, 
Esq.  These  specimens  of  lost  and  recovered  MSS.  in  modern  times  must 
suffice  to  show  the  perfect  credibility  of  this  account  of  Hilkiah.  It  will  not 
be  considered  to  the  point  probably  to  mention  that  Herculaneum  and  Pompeii 
were  lost  for  over  sixteen  centuries  in  the  heart  of  Italy.  Most  certainly,  a 
Hebrew  roll  might  be  lost  for  sixty  years  in  the  ruined,  desecrated  Temple  of 
Jerusalem. 

Prof.  W.  Robertson  Smith  says,  in  his  lectures  on  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
Jewish  Church,  p.  362,  "The  comiiarison  of  Deuteronomy  xviii.  with  II.  Kings 
x.xxiii.,*/  j<ry.,  effectually  disproves  the  idea  of  some  critics  that  tlie  Deuter- 
onomic  Code  was  a  forgery  of  the  Temple  priests  or  of  their  head,  the  high  priest 
Hilkiah." 


94  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

Lord  commanded  the  children  of  Jacob  "  ;  ...  with 
whom  the  Lord  had  made  a  covenant  and  charged 
them,  saying,  "  Ye  shall  not  fear  other  gods,  nor  bow 
yourselves  to  them,  nor  serve  them  (Exodus  xx.,  5).  .  .  . 
But  the  statutes  and  the  ordinances  and  the  Law  and 
the  commandment  which  he  wrote  for  you,  ye  shall 
observe,  since  the  Lord  brought  you  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt."  The  reference  here  to  a  book,  and  the  same 
book  which  Josiah  found,  is  too  clear  to  need  comment. 
It  is  so  minutely  described  as  containing  the  "  statutes  " 
and  "ordinances"  and  "commandments"  that  there 
seems  to  be  no  room  for  reasonable  doubt  about  the 
identity  of  the  books.  If  room  for  doubt  is  left  by 
these  passages,  chapter  xviii.,  6,  closes  it :  Hezekiah 
"  clave  to  the  Lord,  and  kept  his  commandments  which 
the  Lord  commanded  Moses." 

In  about  830  B.C.,  a  hundred  years  before  the  reign 
of  Hezekiah,  we  read  (II.  Kings  xiv.,  6)  that  Amaziah, 
King  of  Judah,  "  slew  not  the  children  of  the  murder- 
ers [who  had  slain  his  father],  according  unto  that 
which  is  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses, 
wherein  the  Lord  commanded,  saying.  The  fathers 
shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children,  nor  the 
children  be  put  to  death  for  the  fathers  "  (Deuteronomy 
xxiv.,  16).  Here  the  "Book"  is  distinctly  spoken  of 
as  having  been  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Amaziah, 
two  hundred  years  before  the  reign  of  Josiah.  If  it 
should  be  said  that  this  is  a  remark  of  the  historian 
derived  from  the  opinions  of  his  own  time,  the  case  is 
varied  but  little ;  for  it  would  show  that  in  this  time 
the  antiquity  of  the  book  was  the  common  belief. 

About  fifty  years  earlier  than  this,  when  Jehoash  was 


EVIDENCES    FROM   THE    HISTORICAL    WRITINGS.       95 

anointed  king,  we  read  (II.  Kings  xi.,  12)  that  a  part 
of  the  ceremony  of  his  coronation  consisted  in  giving 
him  "the  testimony,"  or,  as  De  Wette  and  Gesenius 
translate,  "The  Law."  In  Deuteronomy  xvii.,  18,  19, 
it  is  required  of  the  king  that  he  should  have  "  a  copy 
of  the  Law,"  ...  "to  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his 
life."  It  is  also  recorded  of  Jehu,  who  reigned  over 
Israel  but  a  few  years  earlier,  that  he  "  took  no  heed 
to  walk  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  "  (II. 
Kings  X.,  31).  When  the  days  drew  nigh  that  David 
should  die,  he  called  Solomon  to  him,  and  charged  him 
most  solemnly  to  walk  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord,  "to 
keep  his  statutes  and  his  commandments  and  his  judg- 
ments and  his  testimonies,  as  it  is  written  in  the  Law 
of  Moses  "  (I.  Kings  ii.,  3). 

Such  are  the  explicit  references  in  the  Books  of  the 
Kings  to  the  Law  of  Moses.  The  references  are  made 
to  one  book,  the  same  as  that  which  Josiah  had,  and 
from  which  Ezra  taught.  In  about  sixty  pages  of  the 
copy  of  the  Bible  before  me,  containing  a  civil  history 
of  five  hundred  years,  could  more  specific  references 
to  the  Pentateuch  have  been  expected  ?  So  brief,  so 
limited,  is  the  history  that  but  few  facts  of  any  kind 
could  be  stated  :  much  less  could  there  be  a  continual, 
specific  reference  by  name  to  a  book  which  was  so  well 
known  as  that  which  contained  the  fundamental  law  of 
the  nation  must  necessarily  have  been. 

The  last  remark  suggests  another  argument  in  favor 
of  the  existence  of  the  book  during  the  period  of  the 
Kings.  It  is  that  the  sins  rebuked  are  violations  of 
the  Mosaic  Law,  that  the  blessings  promised  are  con- 
ditional upon  obedience  to  that  law.     The  whole  tone 


96  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

of  the  history  is  taken  from  the  Pentateuch.  I  will 
enter  into  a  more  minute  examination  of  this  phenom- 
ena, that  the  force  of  the  argument  derived  from  it 
may  be  more  fully  appreciated.  This  is  the  second 
division  of  the  evidence  to  be  derived  from  the  Books 
of  the  Kings  which  I  proposed  to  examine.  If  we 
discover  that  a  writer  is  borrowing  words  and  phrases 
which  we  find  in  a  book  to  which  he  sometimes  refers 
by  the  usual  title,  we  are  still  more  confirmed  in  the 
belief  that  he  had  before  him  the  identical  book  which 
has  come  into  our  hands  ;  just  as,  when  we  find  the 
phraseology  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  sermon  or  his. 
tory  which  we  are  reading,  we  feel  assured  that  the 
author  had  a  copy  of  that  book  substantially  like  our 
own.  I  have  already,  in  the  examination  of  the  Books 
of  the  Kings,  made  one  or  two  quotations  which  con- 
tain passages  from  the  Pentateuch,  /  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  show  that  there  is  a  Mosaic  phraseology^  an  intro- 
duction and  use  of  religious  terms  and  antique  expressions 
which  indicate  familiarity  with  the  Books  of  Moses ;  as 
the  phrases,  "  was  let  hitherto,"  "  thorn  in  the  flesh," 
"given  to  hospitality,"  indicate  familiarity  with  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament. 

In  I.  Kings  ii.,  3,  Solomon  is  directed  to  keep  the 
Law,  that  "he  may  prosper  in  all  that  he  does," — a 
verbal  quotation  from  Deuteronomy  xxix.,  9,  except 
the  change  of  person  from  plural  to  singular,  to  adapt 
it  to  the  person  addressed.  In  the  prayer  which  Sol- 
omon delivered  at  the  dedication  of  the  Temple,  there 
are  numerous  words  and  phrases  taken  from  the  Pen- 
tateuch, such  as,  "if  any  man  trespass  against  his 
neighbor,"    "blasting   and   mildew,"    "the   people   of 


EVIDENCES   FROM   THE   HISTORICAL   WRITINGS.       97 

thine  inheritance,"  "the  Lord  is  God,  there  is  none 
else."  And  if  we  consider  that,  in  connection  with 
the  use  of  these  phrases,  Solomon  makes  use  of  thcs 
expressions,  "  as  thou  spakest  by  the  hand  of  Moses  thy 
servant,  when  thou  broughtest  our  fathers  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt,"  "  there  hath  not  failed  one  word  of  all 
his  good  promise  which  he  promised  by  the  hand  of  Moses 
his  servant,^'  we  cannot  but  feel  a  strong  assurance,  not 
to  say  certainty,  that  we  have  the  book  which  contained 
those  promises.  In  chapter  xxi.,  3,  Naboth  says  to 
Ahab,  who  had  proposed  that  Naboth  should  give  him 
his  vineyard,  "  The  Lord  forbid  it  me  that  I  should  give 
the  inheritance  of  my  fathers  unto  thee."  The  "  inher- 
itance of  the  fathers  "  was  inalienable  according  to  the 
Law,  and  was  considered  very  precious,  as  may  be  seen 
by  referring  to  Numbers  xxxvi.  In  chapter  xxii.,  11, 
Zedekiah,  a  false  prophet,  who  had  "  made  him  horns 
of  iron,"  declared  to  Ahab,  "  With  these  shalt  thou  push 
the  Syrians,"  referring  directly  to  Deuteronomy  xxxiii., 
17,  where  it  is  said  of  Joseph,  "His  horns  are  like  the 
horns  of  unicorns  ;  with  them  shall  he  push  the  people 
together  to  the  ends  of  the  earth."  In  the  seventeenth 
verse  of  the  same  chapter,  it  is  said,  "  I  saw  all  Israel 
...  as  sheep  that  have  not  a  shepherd."  This  phrase 
is  taken  from  Numbers  xxvii.,  17  :  "That  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  Lord  be  not  as  sheep  which  have  no  shep- 
herd." The  agreement  in  the  Hebrew  is  verbal.  In 
the  twenty-seventh  verse,  a  prophet  is  sentenced  by  the 
king  to  eat  the  "  bread  of  affliction,"  a  phrase  taken 
from  Deuteronomy  xvi.,  3,  where  the  poor  bread  which 
the  people  were  compelled  to  eat  on  their  departure 
from  Egypt  is  so  called.     In  II.  Kings  ii.,  9,  Elisha 


98  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

prays  Elijah,  "  Let  a  double  portion  of  thy  spirit  rest 
on  me."  This  phrase,  "double  portion,"  is  taken  from 
Deuteronomy  xxi.,  17,  where  the  portion  of  the  "first- 
born "  is  described  and  defined.  The  use  of  the  word 
phc  in  the  sense  of  "  portion  "  is  found  but  three  times 
in  the  Old  Testament.  In  chapter  iii.,  19,  20,  we  find 
Elisha  directing  the  king,  when  he  made  war  upon  the 
l\Ioabites,  to  "fell  every  good  tree,"  which  is  an  allusion 
to  Deuteronomy  xx.,  19,  20.  In  chapter  iv.,  16,  we  find 
a  very  peculiar  expression  relating  to  the  birth  of  a 
child  which  is  also  found  in  Genesis  xviii.,  10,  14,  where 
Sarah  is  assured  that  she  shall  have  a  son.  The  simi- 
larity of  the  two  cases  in  some  of  their  circumstances 
no  doubt  prompted  the  use  of  the  peculiar  phrase  in 
Kings,  "  About  this  season,  according  to  the  time  of  life, 
thou  shalt  embrace  a  son."  In  the  forty-second  verse 
of  this  chapter,  we  read  that  a  man  brought  to  Elisha 
"bread  of  the  first-fruits,  twenty  loaves  of  barley,  and 
full  ears  of  corn"  (carmel).  This  word  is  used  to  de- 
note the  "polenta  of  early  grain  in  Leviticus  ii.,  14- 
xxiii.,  14,"  says  Gesenius.  In  chapter  v.,  27,  we  read 
that  the  servant  of  Elisha  went  out  from  his  presence 
"  a  leper  white  as  snow."  This  peculiar  phrase  is 
used  in  Numbers  xii.,  10;  Exodus  iv.,  6;  and  nowhere 
else.  The  phrase  as  used  in  those  passages  under  such 
peculiar  circumstances  is  very  strongly  marked,  and 
is  used  by  the  writer  in  Kings  to  indicate  the  severity 
of  the  punishment  which  fell  upon  the  servant  of 
Elisha.  A  peculiar  word  is  used  in  Genesis  xix.,  11,  to 
indicate  blindness  :  "  They  smote  the  men  that  were  at 
the  door  with  blindness."  This  Hebrew  word  is  used 
in  II.  Kings  vi.,  18  :  "  Smite,  I  pray  thee,  this  people 


EVIDENCES   FROM   THE    HISTORICAL   WRITINGS.       99 

with  blindness."  Elisha  doubtless  had  in  his  mind  the 
pecuHar  word  which  indicated  the  blindness  with  which 
the  rioters  about  Lot's  house  had  been  smitten.  The 
word  is  used  in  only  these  two  instances.  In  chapter 
vii.,  2,  an  unbeliever  is  represented  as  addressing  Elisha 
thus :  "  If  the  Lord  would  make  windows  in  heaven, 
might  this  thing  be?"  In  Genesis  vii.,  11,  "the  win- 
dows of  heaven  "  are  spoken  of  as  having  been  opened 
to  produce  the  devastating  flood.  So  here  the  speaker 
says  that,  when  a  flood  comes  again,  this  which  you 
have  predicted  may  happen.  So  references  in  the 
Prophets  are  made  to  the  same  event  in  this  peculiar 
phrase  (Isaiah  xxiv.,  18;  Malachi  iii.,  10),  which  is 
used  nowhere  else. 

Such  is  a  specimen  of  the  peculiar  words  which  are 
used  in  the  Books  of  the  Kings,  taken  from  the  Penta- 
teuch. But  we  also  find  in  these  books  statements  re- 
specting the  observance  of  ordinances  required  in  the 
Pentateuch.  In  I.  Kings  xviii.,  29,  36,  we  read  of  the 
"time  of  offering  the  evening  sacrifice,"  as  required  in 
Exodus  xxix.,  39  ;  and  in  II.  Kings  iii.,  20,  we  read  that 
aid  was  afforded  "in  the  morning  when  the  meatoffer- 
ing was  offered."  Compare  this  with  the  same  passage 
in  Exodus,  and  we  shall  find  that  offerings  were  required 
morning  and  evening,  and  that  a  meat  (or  meal)  offer- 
ing was  to  be  offered  with  the  lamb.  In  II.  Kings  iv., 
23,  we  read  of  two  festal  days,  "  the  new  moon  "  and 
"the  Sabbath."  And,  in  the  first  verse  of  the  same 
chapter,  we  read  of  a  creditor  of  whom  a  woman  says, 
he  "  is  come  to  take  unto  him  my  two  sons  to  be  bond- 
men." This  the  Law  (Leviticus  xxv.,  39)  permitted 
a;:d  regulated.     Solomon  is  represented   as  "offering 


lOO  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings,"  both  of  which  were 
required  by  the  Law.  He  also  assembled  all  the  people 
"  at  the  feast  in  the  month  Ethanim,  which  is  the  sev- 
enth month."  This  was  the  feast  of  the  tabernacle,  and 
the  Temple  was  dedicated  at  this  time.  On  account  of 
the  joyfulness  of  the  occasion,  Solomon  doubled  the 
days  of  this  most  joyful  of  all  the  feasts.  In  I.  Kings 
xii.,  32,  after  the  division  of  the  kingdom,  we  read  that 
Jeroboam  "ordained  a  feast  in  the  eighth  month,  on  the 
fifteenth  day  of  the  month,  like  unto  the  feast  that  is  in 
Judah,  ...  in  a  month  which  he  had  devised  of  his  own 
heart."  Well  did  the  historian  say  this,  for  the  Law  re- 
quired the  feast  to  be  in  the  seventh  month,  not  in  the 
eighth. 

The  testimony  rendered  in  the  Books  of  the  Kings  — 
by  the  name  of  the  book,  by  the  use  of  its  peculiar 
terms,  by  the  quotations  made  from  its  contents,  by  the 
description  of  observances,  sacrifices,  feasts,  offerings, 
such  as  the  Law  requires  —  to  the  existence  of  "the 
Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses  "  which  Ezra  used  in  teach- 
ing the  people  is  as  full  and  as  specific  as,  under  the 
circumstances,  we  could  expect.  Had  we  no  other  writ- 
ings of  this  period,  the  proof  of  the  existence  of  the 
Pentateuch  would  be  as  great  as  that  which  is  furnished 
for  the  antiquity  of  any  other  work  of  that  age.  But 
there  are  other  writings.  The  Books  of  the  Chronicles 
are  still  to  be  examined. 

The  writer  of  these  Books  of  the  Chronicles  speaks 
more  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  hence  we  would  ex- 
pect to  find  in  his  writings  more  frequent  reference  to 
the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  their  religion.  De  Wette, 
Kuenen  especially,  and  others,  have  decried  these  books 


EVIDENCES    FROM    THE    HISTORICAL    WRITINGS.     lOT 

because  they  have  what  they  call  a  Levitical  spirit.  I 
am  not  sure  that  a  priestly  spirit  is  more  likely  to  bias 
an  historian  than  a  political  spirit.  There  has  been  no 
evidence  brought  that  the  bias  of  the  writer  has  cor- 
rupted his  integrity.  At  all  events,  I  am  sure  that  the 
reader,  after  comparing  what  the  chronicler  has  re- 
corded respecting  the  Law  with  what  is  said  respecting 
it  in  the  Books  of  the  Kings,  will  not  be  disposed  to 
think  that  his  Levitical  bias  has  done  him  serious  harm 
as  an  historian.  Let  us,  then,  see  what  this  writer,  who 
has  been  so  unceremoniously  treated,  has  to  say  of  the 
Law,  and  the  customs  of  the  people  so  far  as  they  re- 
garded the  Law. 

In  I.  Chronicles  xvi.,  40,  we  read  that  Zadok  the 
priest  did  "  according  to  all  that  is  written  in  the  Law 
of  the  Lord,  which  he  commanded  Israel."  In  chapter 
xxii.,  12,  13,  David  charges  Solomon  to  "keep  the  Law 
of  the  Lord,"  and  to  "take  heed  to  fulfil  the  statutes 
and  judgments  which  the  Lord  charged  Moses  with  con- 
cerning Israel."  In  II.  Chronicles  vi.,  16,  Solomon 
prays  that  God's  promise  to  his  father,  founded  on  this 
condition, —  if  "  thy  children  take  heed  to  walk  in  my 
Law," —  may  be  fulfilled  in  him.  This  passage  has  been 
quoted  before,  from  Kings.  In  chapter  xii.,  i,  Reho- 
boam  is  said  to  have  forsaken  "  the  Law  of  the  Lord." 
In  chapter  xiv.,  4,  Judah  is  commanded  "to  do  the 
Law."  In  chapter  xvii,  is  an  account  of  the  good  king 
Jehoshaphal's  sending  out  teachers  to  instruct  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  '■'■  t/icy  took  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  the  Lord 
7^<ith  them^  and  went  about  throughout  all  the  cities  of 
Juilali,  ;iiul  taught  the  people."  In  chapter  xxiii.,  18,  it 
is   said  that  Jehoiada   appointed  persons  who  should 


r02  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

"  offer  the  burnt-offerings  of  the  Lord,  as  it  is  written  in 
the  Law  of  MosesT  In  chapter  xxv.,  4,  we  read  that 
Amaziah  slew  not  the  children  of  his  father's  murderers, 
"but  did  as  it  is  written  in  the  Law  of  the  Book  of  Moses, 
where  the  Lord  commanded,  saying,  "  The  fathers  shall 
not  die  for  the  children,  neither  shall  the  children  die 
for  the  fathers,  but  every  man  shall  die  for  his  own  sin." 
This  passage  is  quoted  from  Deuteronomy  xxiv.,  16. 
The  parallel  passage  is  II.  Kings  xiv.,  6.  In  chapter 
XXX.,  16,  we  read  that  the  priests  and  Levites  stood  in 
their  "  place,  .  .  .  according  to  the  Law  of  Moses."  In 
the  thirty-first  chapter,  Hezekiah  directs  that  "morning 
and  evening  burnt-offerings,  and  the  burnt-offerings  for 
the  Sabbaths,  and  for  the  new  moons,  and  for  the  set 
feasts  "  shall  be  offered,  "  as  it  is  written  in  the  Law  of 
the  Lord."  He  further  directed  that  "  the  portion  of  the 
priests  and  Levites"  should  be  given  them,  "that  they 
might  be  encouraged  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord."  And 
"every  work  that  he  began  ...  in  the  Law  ...  he  did 
with  all  his  heart."  In  chapter  xxxiii.,  8,  we  read  of  "  the 
whole  Law  and  statutes  and  ordinances  by  the  hand  of 
Moses r  In  chapter  xxxiv.,  we  have  an  account  of  the 
finding  of  the  "  Book  of  the  Law  of  the  Lord  given  by 
Moses,"  parallel  to  the  passage  in  II.  Kings  xxii.  In 
chapter  xxxv.,  Josiah  commands  to  kill  the  passover 
"  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  by  the  hand  of 
Moses"  ;  and  they  did  "ai-  //  is  written  in  the  Book  of 
Mosesy  And  the  good  king's  acts  were  "  according  to 
that  which  was  written  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord."  It 
will  be  observed  that  the  "  Book  of  Moses  "  and  "  the 
Lav/  of  the  Lord  "  are  identical. 

Such  is  the  manner  in  which  the  Pentateuch  is  spoken 


EVIDENCES    FROM    THE    HISTORICAL   WRITINGS.     I03 

of  in  the  Books  of  the  Chronicles.  There  is  no  marked 
difference  between  the  style  of  reference  and  that  in 
the  Kings.  Nor  are  the  references  much  more  numer- 
ous. These  titles  of  the  book,  or  the  names  by  which  it 
is  called,  are  the  same  as  those  which  we  found  in  the 
Books  of  the  Kings,  in  Ezra,  in  Nehemiah,  in  Malachi, 
in  Ecclesiasticus,  and  in  Maccabees.  The  same  names 
being  used,  the  inference  is  that  the  same  book  is  re- 
ferred to.  But  as  we  found  quotations  from  the  book 
in  Kings,  so  we  do  in  the  Chronicles,  still  more  cer- 
tainly identifying  it  as  the  same  book  by  its  contents. 
The  use  of  peculiar  and  emphatic  terms  which  are  found 
in  the  Pentateuch  shows  that  the  writer  was  familiar 
with  the  book  as  we  now  have  it.  The  people  are  ex- 
horted not  to  be  "stiff-necked  "  as  their  fathers  were, — 
II.  Chronicles  xxx.,  8.  In  the  Pentateuch,  this  is  a  fa- 
vorite term.  "The  mighty  hand  and  stretched-out  arm" 
are  spoken  of  in  chapter  vi.,  32,  which  is  a  peculiar 
phrase  of  the  Pentateuch.  God  is  said  to  be  "gracious 
and  merciful,"  chapter  xxx.,  9,  which  is  a  quotation  from 
Exodus  xxxiv.,  6.  It  is  used  elsewhere  in  the  Penta- 
teuch, however.  In  chapter  xxx.,  15,  we  read  that 
"they  killed  the  passover  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
second  month";  and  "kept  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread  seven  days,"  verse  21.  This  is  in  accordance 
with  what  is  recorded  in  Exodus  xii.  The  feasts  are 
spoken  of.  In  chapter  viii.,  13,  we  read  of  the  solemn 
feasts,  three  times  a  year,  "  even  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread,  and  the  feast  of  weeks,  and  the  feast  of  taber- 
nacles." And  in  these  books,  as  in  the  Books  of  the 
Kings,  the  whole  tone  of  rebuke  and  approbation  is 
taken  from  the  standard  established  in  the  Pentateuch. 


I04  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

Nothing  could  be  expected  different  in  their  style  and 
tone,  if  it  were  mathematically  certain  that  the  Penta- 
teuch existed  at  this  time,  by  information  derived  from 
an  entirely  different  source. 

I  have  now  examined  the  historical  works  which 
treat  of  the  condition  of  the  people  from  the  time  of 
David.  It  is  for  the  reader  to  determine  whether  there 
is  not  as  much  and  as  explicit  reference  to  the  Penta- 
teuch as,  under  the  circumstances,  could  be  expected. 
What  book  of  that  age  can  be  so  certainly  traced  in 
history  ?  We  have  found  no  hint  of  any  remodelling 
of  the  work,  and  we  have  no  historical  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  any  such  thing  was  done.  Without  any  far- 
ther evidence,  we  have  sufficient  proof  of  the  existence 
of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  days  of  David,  within  three 
or  four  centuries  of  the  time  of  Moses.  But  the  whole 
field  of  the  poetical  books  is  yet  to  be  explored.  Fur- 
ther and  striking  evidence  will  here  appear  of  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  "  Law  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God." 

II.  Evidence  frOf?i  the  Poetical  Books. —  I  have  al- 
ready remarked  that  in  poetical  works  we  do  not  ex- 
pect to  find  books  referred  to  by  quoting  their  title- 
page  ;  and  usually  we  may  expect  that  the  reference 
will  be  the  less  explicit  as  the  work  referred  to  is  well 
known.  We  shall  only  look  for  general  terms  and 
phrases,  and  shall  often  expect  to  find  some  word  ex- 
pressive of  the  contents  of  the  book  used  by  me- 
tonymy to  denote  the  book  itself.  In  the  historical 
books,  we  have  found  that  the  Pentateuch  was  referred 
to  by  the  name  of  "  The  Law,"  "  The  Law  of  Moses," 
"The  Law  of   the  Lord,"  "The   statutes,  judgments, 


EVIDENCE    FROM   THE    POETICAL   BOOKS.  IO5 

commandments,  and  ordinances  of  the  Lord."  We 
may  therefoie  expect  to  find  only  these,  and  still 
more  general,  names  given  to  the  book  by  the  poets. 

1.  The  Book  of  Daniel  is  supposed  by  many  to 
have  been  written  at  a  late  period,  long  after  the  cap- 
tivity. As  I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  any  discus- 
sion respecting  the  age  of  the  books  which  I  shall 
quote,  I  will  only  remark  that,  if  Daniel  was  written 
at  as  late  a  period  as  is  maintained  by  some,  it  shows 
how  the  Pentateuch  was  referred  to  at  that  time,  and 
enables  us  to  trace  the  book,  by  the  manner  in  which  it 
is  spoken  of,  back  to  earlier  times.  In  Daniel  ix.,  lo, 
II,  13,  we  find  the  prophet  lamenting,  in  his  prayer, 
the  sins  of  the  people ;  and  he  confesses  as  follows : 
"  Neither  have  we  obeyed  the  voice  of  the  Lord  our 
God  to  walk  in  his  laws.  .  .  .  Yea,  all  Israel  have  trans- 
gressed thy  Law ;  .  .  .  and  therefore  the  curse  is  poured 
upon  us. . .  that  is  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses,  the  ser- 
vant of  God.  .  .  .  And  he  hath  confirmed  his  words,  .  .  . 
as  it  is  written  in  the  Law  of  Moses."  That  the  Pen- 
tateuch is  here  referred  to  is  past  all  question. 

2.  Habakkuk,  speaking  of  the  violence  that  pre- 
vailed in  the  land,  gives,  as  a  reason  for  it,  that  "  the 
Law  is  slacked,  and  judgment  doth  never  go  forth," 
chapter  i.,  4. 

3.  Zephaniah,  chapter  ii.,  3,  exhorts  all  those  "to 
seek  the  Lord  which  have  wrought  his  judgment,"  i.e., 
obeyed  his  Law ;  for  we  shall  soon  find  that  this  word 
sometimes  stands  for  the  whole  Law. 

4.  Ezekiel,  who  lived  during  the  captivity,  prophesy- 
ing of  the  evil  yet  to  befall  the  people,  says,  chapter 
vii.,  26,  "  The  Law  shall  perish  from  the  priests."     In 


ro6  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

the  name  of  God,  he  says  to  the  people,  chapter  v.,  6, 
"  they  have  refused  my  judgments  and  my  statutes, 
and  have  not  walked  in  them."  He  declares,  chapter 
xi.,  20,  that  their  heart  will  yet  become  flesh,  so  that 
they  will  walk  in  "the  statutes  and  keep  the  ordi- 
nances "  of  the  Lord.  He  repeats  the  same  truth  in 
chapter  xxxvi.,  27.  In  the  eighteenth  chapter,  the  same 
expressions  are  used  to  denote  the  Law  ;  and  specific 
statutes  are  referred  to.  He  promises  that  blessings 
shall  attend  the  man  who  "  hath  not  defiled  his  neigh- 
bor's wife  "  (Leviticus  xviii.,  20)  ;  nor  hath  come  near 
to  a  woman  when  she  is  ritually  unclean, —  a  technical 
term  (Leviticus  xviii.,  19);  nor  hath  "oppressed  any" 
(Leviticus  xxv.,  14)  ;  "but  hath  restored  to  the  debtor 
his  pledge  "  (Exodus  xxii.,  26)  ;  "hath  spoiled  none  by 
violence"  (Leviticus  vi.,  2)  ;  "hath  given  his  bread  to 
the  needy,  and  hath  covered  the  naked  with  a  gar- 
ment" (Deuteronomy  XV.,  7,  8);  that  "hath  not  given 
forth  upon  usury"  (Exodus  xxii.,  25) ;  that  "  hath  exe- 
cuted true  judgment  between  man  and  man "  (Leviti- 
cus xix.,  15).  In  chapter  xi.,  12,  Ezekiel  gives  as  a 
reason  why  so  great  punishments  should  fall  upon 
these  people  that  they  "  have  not  walked  in  the  stat- 
utes nor  executed  the  judgments  "  of  the  Lord,  but 
have  done  after  the  manner  of  the  heathen.  If  we 
look  into  the  Law  (Leviticus  xviii.,  4,  5),  we  shall  find 
it  declared  that  the  people  shall  not  do  according  to 
other  people's  laws  and  customs  ;  and  it  is  commanded 
them,  "  Ye  shall  keep  my  statutes  and  my  judgments." 
These  references  will  suffice  for  this  prophet,  to  show 
that  he  quotes  the  Law,  and  that  he  gives  it  the  same 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETICAL    BOOKS,  1 07 

names,  in  his  references  to  it,  which  are  given  by  other 
writers  whose  works  we  have  examined.* 

5.  From  Ezekiel,  I  will  pass  to  Jeremiah,  who  was 
his  contemporary  for  a  part  of  his  life.  Jeremiah  went 
from  Jerusalem  into  Egypt.    Ezekiel,  many  years  previ- 

*  "  It  is  difficult,"  says  a  writer  in  The  Unitarian  Review  for  November, 
1S80,  p.  431,  "it  is  difficult  to  read  his  [Ezekiel's]  pages  written  in  Babylon, 
and  believe  that  any  important  priestly  legislation  had  preceded  them.  He  does 
not  quote  from  existing  laws."  In  view  of  this  unqualified  denial  from  so  re- 
spectable a  source,  I  feel  called  upon  to  invite  the  reader's  attention  to  farther 
proof  that  Ezekiel's  writings  give  overwhelming  evidence  of  his  acquaintance 
with  "existing  laws."  It  is  assumed  from  the  character  of  the  writer  that 
no  quibble  is  intended  in  the  use  of  the  word  "  quote."  If  it  is  meant  that  the 
name  of  the  writer,  and  the  chapter  and  verse  in  which  the  quotation  may  be 
found,  are  not  mentioned,  then  there  is  an  instant  end  to  the  discussion.  But, 
if  it  is  meant  that  there  are  no  clear  quotations  of  statutes  and  phrases  from  the 
Pentateuch  as  definitely  made  as  could  be  expected  in  a  poetical  address,  then 
I  must  take  direct  issue,  and  appeal  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader  by  fortifying 
my  previous  references ;  and  the  reader  is  especially  requested  to  observe  that 
the  captivity  of  the  people  is  ascribed  to  disobeying  the  law  quoted. 

Examples:  Ezekiel  iv.,  14,  "Behold,  my  soul  hath  not  been  polluted;  for  I 
have  not  eaten  of  that  which  dieth  of  itself,  or  is  torn  in  pieces;  neither  came 
there  abominable  flesh  into  my  mouth."  Compare  now  the  difleient  laws  on 
this  subject:  Exodus  xxii.,  31,  "Neither  shall  ye  eat  any  flesh  that  is  torn  of 
beasts";  Leviticus  xvii.,  15,  "And  he  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even"; 
Deuteronomy  xiv.,  3,  "Thou  shall  not  cat  any  abominable  thing'' ;  and  Leviti- 
cus xxii.,  8,  "That  which  dieth  of  itself,  or  is  torn,  he  shall  not  eat."  These 
scattered  laws  are  condensed  by  Ezekiel.  Ezekiel  iv.,  16,  reads,  "  I  will  break 
the  staflE  of  bread  in  Jerusalem;  and  they  shall  eat  bread  by  weight,  and  with 
care";  Leviticus  xxvi.,  26,  "When  I  have  broken  the  staff  of  your  bread,  ..  . 
they  shall  deliver  you  your  bread  by  weight "  ;  Ezekiel  v.,  10,  "  The  fathers  shall 
cat  the  sons  in  the  midst  of  thee,  and  the  sons  shall  eat  their  fathers,  .  .  .  and 
the  whole  remnant  of  thee  will  I  scatter  into  all  the  winds."  Compare  Leviti- 
cus xxvi.,  29,  "  And  ye  shall  eat  the  flesh  of  your  sons,  and  the  flesh  of  your 
daughters";  and  verse  33,  "And  I  will  scatter  you  among  the  heathen";  also 
Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  64,  "  The  Lord  shall  scatter  thee  among  all  people,  from  the 
one  end  of  the  earth  even  unto  the  other."  Tliii  is  another  instance  of  Ezekie.'s 
condensing  separate  threatenings  into  one.  Ezekiel  v.,  12,  "  I  will  scatter  a 
third  part  into  all  the  winds,  and  I  will  draw  out  a  sword  after  them  " ;  Leviti- 
cus xxvi.,  33,  "I  will  scatter  you  among  the  heathen,  and  will  draw  out  a 
sword  after  you";  Ezekiel  xiv.,  14,  15,  "  I  will  make  thee  waste,  and  a  re- 
proach among  the  nations.  ...  It  shall  be  a  repro;  ch  and  a  taunt,  an  instruction 
and  an  astonishment  unto  the  nations";  Leviticus  xxvi.,  31,  "I  will  make 
your  cities  waste,  and  bring  your  sanctuaries  unto  desolation, .  .  .  and  your  ene- 


Io8  A   STUDY    OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

ously,  went  to  Babylonia  as  a  captive.  The  following 
remarkable  quotation  from  the  Pentateuclr  is  found  in 
Jeremiah  iv.,  23,  "  I  beheld  the  earth,  and,  lo,  it  was 
without  form  and  void,''^  a  phrase  found  only  in  Gene- 
sis i.,  2.     In  chapter  ii.,  8,   the  prophet  says,  in  the 

mies  .  .  .  shall  be  astonished  at  it."  So  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  37,  "  Thou  shalt  be- 
come an  astonishment,  a  proverb,  and  a  by-word  among  all  nations"  ;  Ezekiel  v., 
17,  "I  will  send  upon  you  famine,  and  evil  beasts,  and  they  shall  bereave 
thee";  Leviticus  xxvi.,  22,  "I  will  also  send  wild  beasts  among  you,  which 
shall  rob  you  of  your  children"  ;  Ezekiel  vi.,  4,  5,  "  I  will  destroy  your  high 
places,  yo'ir  altars  shall  be  desolate  and  your  images  shall  be  broken,  and  I  will 
cast  dovni  your  slain  before  your  idols,  and  I  will  lay  the  dead  carcasses  of  the 
children  of  Israel  before  their  idols  "  ;  Leviticus  xxvi.,  30,  "  I  will  destroy  your 
high  places  and  cut  down  your  images,  and  cast  your  carcasses  upon  the  car- 
casses of  your  idols";  Ezekiel  vi.,  6,  "The  cities  shall  be  laid  waste,  and  the 
high  places  shall  be  desolate";  Leviticus  xxvi.,  31,  "I  will  make  your  cities 
waste,  and  bring  your  sanctuaries  unto  desolation"  ;  Ezekiel  xiv.,  8,  "  I  will  set 
my  face  against  that  man,  .  .  .  and  will  cut  him  off  from  the  midst  of  my  people ' ' ; 
Leviticus  xvii.,  10,  "  I  will  set  my  face  against  that  soul,  .  . .  and  will  cut  him  off 
from  among  his  people  "  ;  Ezekiel  xiv.,  15,  "  Wild  beasts  will  desolate  the  land." 
So  Leviticus  xxvi.,  22  ;  Ezekiel  xvi.,  59,  "  Thou  hast  despised  the  oath  in  break- 
ing the  covenant";  Deuteronomy  xxix.,  12,  "That  thou  shouldest  enter  into 
covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  iato  his  oath  "  ;  verse  14,  "  Neither  with 
you  only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and  this  oath  "  ;  Ezekiel  xviii.,  6.  There  is  a 
special  reference  to  the  law  respecting  the  relation  of  the  sexes,  which  is  found  in 
Leviticus  xviii.,  ig,  20,  and  xxiv.,  18 ;  Ezekiel  xviii.,  7,  "  And  hath  not  oppressed 
any,  but  hath  restored  to  the  debtor  his  pledge";  Exodus  xxii.,  26,  "If  thou 
take  thy  neighbor's  raiment  to  pledge,  thou  shalt  deliver  it  to  him  by  that  the  sun 
goeth  down  "  ;  xxiii.,  9,  "  Thou  shalt  not  oppress  a  stranger  "  ;  Ezekiel  xviii.,  20, 
"The  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  f'.ther,  neither  shall  the  father  bear 
the  iniquity  of  the  son  "  ;  Deuteronomy  xxiv.,  16,  "  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put 
to  death  for  the  children,  neither  shall  the  children  be  put  to  death  for  the 
fathers";  Ezekiel  xx.,  6,  "a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey";  Exodus 
iii.,  8,  "  a  good  land,  ...  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey"  ;  Ezekiel  xx. ,  ii, 
"And  I  gave  them  my  statutes,  and  showed  them  my  judgments,  which  if  a  man 
do  he  shall  live  in  them  "  ;  Leviticus  xviii.,  5,  "Ye  shall  keep  my  statutes  and 
my  judgments,  which  if  a  man  do  he  shall  live  in  them  "  ;  Ezekiel  xx. ,  12,  "  I 
gave  them  my  sabbaths,  to  be  a  sign  between  me  and  them  " ;  Exodus  xxxi. ,  13, 
"  My  s.abbaths  ye  shall  keep,  for  it  is  a  sign  between  me  and  you  "  ;  Ezekiel  xx., 
13,  "  Then  I  said,  I  would  pour  out  my  fury  upon  them  in  the  wilderness,  to 
consume  them";  Numbers  xiv.,  29,  32,  33,  "So  will  I  do  to  you:  your  car- 
casses shall  fall  in  this  wilderness  "  ;  Ezekiel  xx.,  23,  "  I  lifted  up  my  hand  unto 
them  also  in  the  wilderness,  that  I  would  scatter  them  among  the  heathen,  and 


EVIDENCE   FROM    THE    POETICAL    BOOKS,  1 09 

name  of  the  Lord,  "  They  that  handle  the  Law  knew 
me  not " ;  for  the  priests  and  the  prophets  whose  office 
it  was  to  know  the  Law  were  both  of  them  violathig  it 
by  serving  Baal.  In  chapter  xviii.,  8,  the  prophet 
complains,  in  a  prayer  to  the  Lord,  of  the  boasting  of 

disperse  thL-m  through  the  couutrias."  The  threatening  is  recorded  in  Leviticus 
xxv'i  ,  33,  "  I  will  scatter  you  among  thi  heathen";  PZzekiel  xx.,  31,  "When 
ye  offer  ^  our  gifts,  when  ye  make  your  sons  to  pass  through  the  fire  "  ;  Leviticus 
xviii.,  21,  "  Thou  shall  not  let  any  of  thy  seed  pass  through  the  fire  to  Molech." 
This  chapter  is  largely  the  language  of  the  Levitical  law:  Ezekiel  xxii.,  7, 
"  They  have  set  light  by  father  and  mother  "  ;  Deuteronomy  xxvii. ,  16,  "  Cursed 
be  he  that  setteth  light  by  his  father  or  his  mother"  ;  also,  "  They  have  dealt  op- 
pression with  the  stranger  "  ;  Exodus  xxii.,  21,  "Thou  shalt  neither  vex  a  stran- 
ger, nor  oppress  him  " ;  also,  "  In  thee  have  they  vexed  the  fatherless  and  the 
widow";  Exodus  xxii.,  22,  "Ye  shall  not  afflict  any  widow  or  fatherless 
child."  In  Ezekiel  xxii.,  the  language  and  phrases  and  sentences  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch are  so  frequent  as  to  forbid  quotation.  After  one  more  quotation, 
I  must  refer  the  interested  reader  to  the  chapter  itself.  Verse  26  reads  thus : 
"Her  priests  have  violated  my  law,  and  have  profaned  mine  holy  things: 
they  have  put  no  difference  between  the  holy  and  profane,  neither  have  they 
showed  difference  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean,  and  have  hid  their  eyes 
from  my  sabbaths,  and  I  am  profaned  amor.g  them"  ;  Leviticus  xxii.,  2,  "  Speak 
unto  Aaron  and  to  his  sons,  .  .  .  that  they  profane  not  my  holy  name  in  those 
things  which  they  hallow  unto  me  "  ;  x.,  10,  "  And  that  ye  put  difference  between 
holy  and  unholy,  and  between  unclean  and  clean."  Here  is  certainly  a  clear 
reference  to  priests,  to  a  ritual  law,  and  the  duty  of  observing  it.  There  are  not 
less  than  twenty  distinct  references  to  the  law  and  passages  from  it  in  this 
chapter  of  only  thirty-one  verses. 

It  would  seem  to  most  minds  a  sheer  waste  of  time  and  patience  to  pur- 
sue this  inquiry  further,  but  one  or  two  more  passages  demand  attention :  Ezek- 
iel xxiv.,  7,  "  Her  blood,  .  .  .  she  poured  it  not  upon  the  ground  to  cover  it  with 
dust  "  ;  Leviticus  xvii.,  13,  "  He  shall  even  pour  out  the  blood  thereof,  and  cover 
it  with  dust."  In  Deuteronomy  xii.,  16,  it  reads,  "Ye  shall  pour  out  the  blood 
upon  the  earth  as  water,"  and  nothing  is  .said  of  "  covering  it  with  dust,"  show- 
ing that  Ezekiel  had  the  priestly  law  of  Leviticus  before  him,  or  i:i  mind,  which, 
according  to  Kuenen's  hypothesis,  was  not  written  till  a  century  after  his  death! 
If  the  reader  has  interest  enough  to  do  it,  and  is  not  yet  satisfied,  he  may  com- 
pare Ezekiel  xxviii,,  24,  with  Numbers  xxxiii.,  55;  and  Ezekiel  xxxiii.,  15,  with 
Exodus  x.'cii  ,  4,  Numbers  v.,  6,  Leviticus  xviii.,  5;  and  Ezekiel  xxxiii.,  25,  with 
Leviticus  vii.,  26;  Ezekiel  xxxiv.,  25-27,  with  Leviticus  xxvi.,  6,  7;  Ezekiel 
xxxvi.,  3,  17,  wiih  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  37,  Leviticus  xviii.,  25;  and  Ezekiel 
xxxix.,  23,  with  Deuteronomy  xxxi.,  17.     But  enough  :  I  must  hold  my  hand. 

I  have  taken  pains  to  compare  the  frequency  of  Ezekiel's  use  of  the  language 


no  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

the  wicked,  who  say,  "  The  Law  shall  not  perish  from 
the  priest."  In  chapter  xliv.,  23,  he  upbraids  the  peo- 
ple because  they  have  not  "  obeyed  the  voice  of  the 
Lord,  nor  walked  in  his  Law,  nor  in  his  statutes,  nor  in 
his  testimonies."  And  in  the  tenth  verse  he  is  still 
more  explicit :  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  he 
says,  "Ye  have  not  walked  in  my  Law,  nor  in  my  stat- 
utes that  I  set  before  you  and  before  your  fathers^ 
In  the  twenty-second  verse,  he  says  that  on  account  of 
their  sins  their  "  land  is  a  desolation  and  an  astonish- 
ment and  a  curse," — words  used  in  Leviticus  xxvi.,  32, 
to  denote  the  punishment  which  should  follow  trans- 
gression. These  are  a  specimen  of  the  terms  used  by 
this  prophet  when  he  refers  to  the  Pentateuch.  The 
whole  spirit  and  almost  letter  of  Jeremiah's  prophesy 
is  based  upon  the  Pentateuch.  His  promises  and 
threatenings  are  all  founded  upon  the  laws  therein  con- 
tained. All  the  rites  and  ceremonies  which  he  de- 
scribes are  such  as  are  found  in  "  The  Law."  There 
is  but  one  passage  which  appears   to   invalidate   this 

in  the  law,  and  references  to  it  and  quotations  from  it,  with  that  of  four  of  our 
most  celebrated  preachers'  reference  to  the  gospel,  or  quotations  from  it.  Dr. 
Dewey,  in  the  Two  Great  Comtnandments,  a  volume  of  three  hundred 
pages,  uses  the  language  of  the  Gospels  (texts  of  sermons  excepted)  but  forty- 
five  times.  Mr.  Martineau,  in  Hours  of  Thought  secord  series,  uses  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Gospels  twenty-five  times.  Dr.  Channing,  in  the  Perfect  Life, 
uses  the  language  of  the  Gospels  eight  times  in  two  hundred  pages.  Dr. 
Walker,  in  Reason,  Faith,  and  Duty,  uses  the  language  of  the  Gospels  eighteen 
times  in  two  hundred  pages;  and  in  but  ^tocj  instances  does  he  say  he  takes  it 
from  the  Gospels,  and  in  but  very  few  instances  do  the  others. 

Since  this  note  was  written,  I  learn  [Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1881,  p.  390) 
that  Prof.  R.  Smend,  in  his  recent  work,  The  Prophet  Ezekiel{Der  Prophet 
Ezechiel),  1880,  maintains  that  the  Levitical  law  was  developed  from  Ezekiel, 
and  not  Ezekiel's  quutatious  taken  from  the  law.  Of  any  such  hypothesis,  the 
re^'ding  of  Ezekiel  is  the  swiftest  and  most  conclusive  confutation.  Ezekiel's 
quiitaions  are  not  only  from  a  law  already  in  existence,  but  from  a  law  given  to 
(he  fathers,  and  for  not  obeying  which  they  were  carried  captive. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE   POETICAL    BOOKS.  I  1 1 

conclusion.  It  is  contained  in  chapter  vii.,  21-23: 
"  Put  your  burnt-offerings  unto  your  sacrifices,  and  eat 
flesh.  For  I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  com- 
manded them  in  the  day  that  I  brought  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt-offerings  or  sacri- 
fices. But  this  thing  commanded  I  them,  saying,  Obey 
my  voice  and  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  my 
people."  The  state  of  mind  in  which  the  prophet  ut- 
tered this  passage  must  be  considered,  in  order  to  un- 
derstand his  meaning.  "  The  children  gather  wood," 
sa5'^s  he,  "and  the  fathers  kindle  the  fire,  and  the  women 
knead  their  dough  to  make  cakes  to  the  queen  of 
heaven,  and  to  pour  out  drink-offerings  unto  other 
gods,"  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem.  The  flagrant  viola- 
tion of  the  Law  in  offering  these  sacrifices  to  such  vile 
gods  in  the  streets  of  the  city  so  fired  his  soul  with  in- 
dignation that  he  put  the  comparalive  value  of  sacrifices 
and  an  obedient  heart  in  direct  contrast  with  each 
other:  "The  Lord  did  not  command  sacrifices;  he  re- 
quired a  pure  heart."  Another  view  is  that  the 
prophet  here  made  a  sharp  distinction  between  what 
was  commanded  and  what  was  only  regulated.  It  is 
contended  by  some  critics  that  sacrifices  are  regulated 
by  the  Law,  not  commanded  by  it, —  they  were  already 
in  existence,  like  circumcision.*  Whatever  view  we  may 
take  of  the  prophet's  meaning,  we  cannot  understand 
him  as  looking  upon  sacrifices  as  offensive  to  God ;  for 
in  chapter  xvii.,  26,  in  describing  the  great  glory  and 
pure  worship  of  the  blessed  period  which  would  come 
after  their  enemies  were  destroyed  and  God's  kingdom 

*Levilicus  i.,  2.,  "Speak  unto  the  children  o£  Israel  and  say  unto  tliem   if 
3iiy  man  bring  an  offering  unto  the  Lord,  ye  shall  bring,"  etc. 


112  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

was  established,  he  says,  "  They  shall  come  from  the  cit- 
ies of  Judah,  and  from  the  places  about  Jerusalem,  and 
from  the  land  of  Benjamin,  and  from  the  plain,  and 
from  the  mountains,  and  from  the  south,  bringing  burnt- 
offerings  and  sacrifices  and  meat-offerings  and  incense, 
and  bringing  sacrifices  of  praise  unto  the  house  of  the 
Lord."  The  more  probable  interpretation  is  that  v/hich 
is  founded  upon  the  supposition  that  the  prophet  is 
asserting  a  strong  negative  to  show  the  comparative 
value  of  sacrifices  and  the  spirit  in  which  they  should 
be  Oifered.  But,  admitting  that  we  could  adopt  no  in- 
terpretation which  would  reconcile  this  passage  wi'h 
others,  it  would  not  be  reasonable  to  deny  the  asser- 
tion of  a  hundred  passages  because  of  the  apparent 
counter  assertion  of  one.  His  prophecy  teaches  most 
clearly  that  offering  sacrifices  in  accordance  with  the 
regulations  of  the  Pentateuch  was  a  part  of  the  na- 
tional worship,  and  shows,  whatever  was  the  origin  of 
that  book,  that  it  was  in  existence  in  his  time.  This, 
indeed,  is  the  only  point  which  I  am  now  endeavoring 
to  establish.  In  Lamentations,  it  is  said,  chap,  ii.,  9, 
that  "the  Law  is  no  more  "  ;  that  is,  not  regarded. 

6.  Passing  now  to  a  still  earlier  period,  we  come 
to  Isaiah  who  flourished  about  730  B.C.  The  style 
of  his  poetry  is  much  loftier  than  that  of  the  prophets 
whom  we  have  examined,  and  hence  we  should  expect 
to  find  fewer  explicit  references  to  the  statute-book  of 
the  nation.  I  do  not  speak  too  strongly,  however, 
when  I  say  that  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah  are  based 
upon  the  doctrines  of  the  Pentateuch.  Their  tone  and 
spirit  are  just  as  we  should  expect  them  to  be,  if  Isaiah 
had  made  himself  familiar  with  that  book.     In  describ- 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE   POETICAL    BOOKS.  II3 

ing  the  future  glory  of  the  kingdom,  in  a  passage  taken 
from  a  still  earlier  prophet,  he  says,  "  For  out  of  Zion 
shall  go  forth  the  Law,'^  to  be  established  among  all 
nations.  In  the  eighth  chapter,  he  rebukes  the  people 
for  going  after  false  gods,  "  and  to  wizards  that  peep 
and  mutter "  ;  and  asks,  "  Should  not  a  people  seek 
unto  their  own  God  ?  ...  To  the  Law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony ;  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is 
because  there  is  no  light  in  them."  Nothing  can  be 
clearer  than  that  the  prophet  counsels  the  people  to 
study  the  book  of  their  own  law  instead  of  consulting 
wizards,  if  they  wish  to  learn  their  duty.  In  chapter  xlii., 
21,  24,  the  prophet  declares  that,  notwithstanding  the 
neglect  which  it  has  received,  the  Lord  "will  magnify 
the  Law  and  make  it  honorable "  ;  and  he  gives  as  a 
reason  why  Jacob  had  been  given  for  a  spoil  and  Israel 
to  robbers,  that  they  "would  not  walk  in  the  ways  of 
the  Lord,  neither  were  obedient  to  his  Law."  Ge- 
senius  says  that  the  phrase,  "I  will  make  my  judgment 
to  rest  for  a  light  of  the  people  "  (chap,  li.,  4),  refers  to 
the  Mosaic  Law.  It  should  be  remarked  concerning 
the  last  two  passages  that  they  are  in  that  portion  of 
Isaiah  which  has  been  assigned  to  a  later  date  and  an- 
other writer.  In  chapter  xxiv.,  5,  it  is  affirmed  that  the 
people  "have  transgressed  the  laws,  changed  the  ordi- 
nance, and  broken  the  everlasting  covenant."  By 
these  terms  "The  Law"  is  referred  to  in  other  books, 
and  very  probably  they  refer  to  it  here.  In  the  first 
chapter  of  his  prophec}',  Isaiah  rebukes  severely  those 
who  "  trample  the  courts  of  the  Lord,"  bringing  their 
sacrifice  with  wicked  hearts  and  bloody  hands.  He 
says  to  the  people,  if  "ye  be  willing  and  obedient,  ye 


114  ^   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

shall  eat  of  the  good  of  the  land."  This  is  in  conform' 
ity  with  the  Law,  Deuteronomy  iv.,  30;  viii.,  20;  and 
many  other  places.  He  speaks  of  their  "new  moons" 
and  "appointed  feasts."  He  asks  where -the  people 
can  be  "smitten"  again,  since  "from  the  sole  of  the 
foot  even  unto  the  head  there  is  no  soundness  in  it,'' 
with  evident  reference  to  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  35, 
where  it  is  said  of  the  nation,  if  it  sin,  "  The  Lord  shall 
smite  thee  .  .  .  with  a  sore  botch  that  cannot  be  healed, 
from  the  sole  of  thy  foot  to  the  top  of  thy  head."  He 
says  to  them,  "Your  country  is  desolate;  your  cities 
are  burned  with  fire;  your  land  —  strangers  devour  it, 
and  it  is  desolate,"  as  it  was  foretold  would  be  the  case 
in  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  where  it  is  said,  "  The  nation 
from  far  .  .  .  shall  eat  the  fruit  of  thy  land  "  until  it  be 
"destroyed."  "But,"  he  continues,  "if  ye  be  willing 
and  be  obedient,  ye  shall  consume  the  good  of  the 
land  ;  but,  if  ye  refuse  and  rebel,  ye  shall  be  devoured 
with  the  sword  ;  for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken 
it."  In  Leviticus  xxvi.,  5,  the  Lord  says,  "  If  ye  walk 
in  my  statutes,  ...  ye  shall  eat  your  bread  to  the  full "  ; 
but,  if  ye  will  not  hearken  to  me,  I  "  vvill  draw  out  a 
sword  after  you  "  (verse  t,^)  ;  "  my  sword  shall  devour 
flesh  "  (Deuteronomy  xxxii.,  42).  In  the  description 
which  the  prophet  gives  of  the  enemy  which  he  will  call 
to  destroy  his  wicked  people,  there  is  evident  allusion 
to  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  49,  50.  Isaiah  says  (chap,  v., 
26,  27),  "He  will  lift  up  an  ensign  to  the  nations  from 
far,  and  will  hiss  them  from  the  end  of  the  earth.  .  .  . 
They  shall  come  with  speed  swiftly."  In  Deuteron- 
omy, referred  to  above,  Moses  says,  "  The  Lord  shall 
bring  a  nation  against  thee  from  far,  from  the  end  of 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETICAL   BOOKS.  II5 

the  earth,  as  swift  as  an  eagle  flieth."  These  speci- 
mens must  suffice  to  show  how  Isaiah's  style  abounds 
with  words  and  phrases  which  are  taken  from  the  Pen- 
tateuch, They  prove  that  the  style  of  the  old  Law 
Book  and  its  very  words  were  imbedded  in  his  mind  so 
as  to  make  a  part  of  his  thoughts. 

7.  The  prophet  Micah  was  a  contemporary  of 
Isaiah.  His  short  prophecy  is  based,  in  all  its  rebukes 
and  promises,  upon  the  laws  and  threatenings  and 
promises  made  in  the  Pentateuch.  In  the  closing  verse 
of  his  prophecy,  he  declares  that  faithfulness  and  mercy 
will  yet  visit  the  people,  "  which,"  he  says,  addressing 
the  Lord,  "thou  hast  sworn  unto  our  fathers  from  the 
days  of  old."  These  promises  will  be  found  in  Gene- 
sis xii.,  2  ;  xxvi.,  24;  xxviii.,  13;  Deuteronomy  xxx.,  i- 
5.  I  will  not  pause  to  examine  minutely  this  prophecy. 
It  exhibits  the  same  characteristics  as  does  that  of 
Isaiah ;  and,  as  he  was  contemporary  with  that  prophet, 
it  is  less  important  to  present  his  allusions,  mostly  quite 
obscure,  to  the  Law.  And  I  pass  on  the  more  readily, 
since  Dr.  Kuenen,  in  his  elaborate  work  on  T/ie  Relig- 
ion of  Israel,  admits  that  the  references  of  Micah  are  so 
numerous  and  so  exact  to  the  events  recorded  in  the 
Pentateuch  that  "  we  must  even  suppose  that  he  was 
acquainted  with  those  narratives,  unless  appearances 
should  tend  to  show  that  they  were  written  or  modified 
at  a  later  date"  (Vol.  I.,  p.  103).  I  will  therefore  pro- 
ceed to  a  consideration  of  the  prophecies  of  Hosea, 
Amos,  and  Joel,  taking  them  up  in  order. 

8.  Hosea  (780  B.C.)  says  to  the  people  (chap,  iv.,  6), 
"Thou  hast  forgotten  the  Law  of  thy  God."  Again, 
he  says  (chap,  viii.,   i),  "They  have  transgressed  my 


Il6  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

covenant  and  trespassed  against  my  Law,"  therefore 
"  He  shall  come  as  an  eagle  against  the  house  of  the 
Lord."  The  reference  is  to  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  49, 
"The  Lord  shall  bring  a  nation  ...  as  swift  as  an 
eagle  flieth."  Speaking  of  Ephraim,  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord,  he  says  (viii.,  12),  "  I  have  written  to  him 
the  great  things  of  my  Law,  but  they  were  counted  as 
a  strange  thing."  One  of  the  distinguishing  features 
of  the  style  of  this  book  is  the  repeated  use  of  the 
words  "whore,"  "whoring,"  "whoredom,"  to  signify 
desertion  of  the  true  God  and  worship  of  false  gods. 
This  phraseology  is  derived  from  the  Pentateuch  most 
obviously.  In  Exodus  xxxiv.,  15,  16;  Leviticus  xx.,  5, 
6  ;  Numbers  xiv.,  ;^;^  ;  Deuteronomy  xxxi.,  16,  and  in 
numerous  other  places,  these  words  are  used  to  signify 
idolatry.  Indeed,  the  style  of  Hosea  is  colored  through 
and  through  with  the  style  of  the  Books  of  Moses.  I 
will  commence  with  the  first  chapter  and  proceed  with 
an  examination  of  his  style  as  far  as  is  necessary  for 
my  purpose.  The  land  is  said  (chap,  i.,  2)  to  have 
"committed  a  great  whoredom."  Leviticus  xix.,  29, 
"  Lest  the  land  fall  to  ["commit";  the  original  word 
is  the  same  as  in  Hosea]  whoredom."  In  verse  10,  it 
is  said,  "  The  number  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  be 
as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  which  cannot  be  measured  nor 
numbered,"  which  is  a  verbal  quotation  from  the  prom- 
ise made  to  Jacob  (Genesis  xxxii.,  12),  "I  will  make 
thy  seed  as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  which  cannot  be  num- 
bered for  multitude."  In  the  eleventh  verse,  the 
prophet  says  that  the  people  "  shall  come  up  out  of  the 
land  "  of  their  captivity.  This  phrase  is  used  repeat- 
edly in   the   Pentateuch  when    the   deliverance   from 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETICAL    BOOKS.  II7 

Egypt  is  spoken  of,  and  therefore  had  great  signifi- 
cance to  the  Jews.  In  chapter  ii ,  8,  the  prophet  says, 
"She,"  Israel,  "  did  not  know  that  I  gave  her  corn  and 
wine  and  oil,"  a  quotation  from  Deuteronomy  vii.,  13, 
where  God  says,  "  I  will  bless  the  fruit  of  thy  land,  thy 
corn  and  thy  wine  and  thine  oil."  And,  in  the  tenth 
verse,  God  says,  "  None  shall  deliver  her  out  of  my 
hand,"  a  phrase  taken  from  Deuteronomy  xxxii.,  39, 
"Neither  is  there  any  that  can  deliver  out  of  my 
hand."  Inverse  11,  we  have  mention  of  "her  feast 
days,"  which  are  the  Passover,  Pentecost,  and  Tab- 
ernacles; her  "new  moons,"  Numbers  xxviii.,  11,  12; 
and  "her  Sabbaths,"  Leviticus  xxiii.,  3;  "and  all  her 
solemn  feasts."  A  very  clear  reference  is  made  in  the 
twelfth  verse,  in  the  word  "  rewards,"  meaning  wages 
of  whoredom,  to  Deuteronomy  xxiii  ,18.  It  is  said 
in  verse  17  that  the  Lord  would  take  the  "names  of 
Baalim  out  of  her  mouth,"  which  phrase  is  used  in 
Exodus  xxiii.,  13,  "make  no  mention  of  the  names  of 
other  gods,  neither  let  it  be  heard  out  of  thy  mouth.'' 
In  chapter  iv.,  4,  we  read  that  reproof  and  rebuke  are 
useless,  for  the  "people  are  as  they  that  strive  with 
the  priest."  And  how  were  they  that  strove  with  the 
priest?  In  Deuteronomy  xvii.,  12,  we  read  that  the 
"  man  that  will  not  hearken  unto  the  priest  .  .  .  shall 
die."  There  was  reason,  then,  why  no  reproof  should 
be  given  to  the  people, —  they  were  past  help.  How 
clear  is  the  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  in  this  pas- 
sage !  A  very  striking  instance  of  quotation  is  found 
in  chapter  iv.,  10.  The  prophet  is  describing  the 
suffering  that  shall  come  upon  the  people  for  their 
sins  ;  and  he  tells  them,  "  They  shall  eat  and  not  be 


Il8  A   STUDY   or   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

satisfied "  (c.v.,  "  not  have  enough ").  In  Leviticus 
xxvi.,  26,  where  the  Lord  threatens  calamities  if  the 
people  sin,  he  says,  "  When  I  have  broken  the  staff  of 
your  bread,  ...  ye  shall  eat  and  not  be  satisfied,"  —  a 
verbal  quotation.  In  the  same  verse  is  a  distinct  ref- 
erence to  Genesis  xxviii.,  14,  and  Leviticus  xx.,  20,  21  : 
"Theyshall  commit  whoredom,  and  shall  not  increase." 
The  original  word  for  "increase,"  "  to  break  forth,"  is 
used  in  the  promise  to  Jacob,  "  And  thou  shalt  spread 
abroad  ["break  forth"]  to  the  west  and  to  the  east," 
etc.  This  use  of  the  word  is  peculiar  to  the  Penta- 
teuch ;  and  the  threatening  of  not  increasing  is  con- 
formed to  the  passage  referred  to  in  Leviticus  and 
many  other  places  in  the  Law.  In  the  thirteenth  verse, 
the  prophet  accuses  the  people  of  sin,  because  they 
have  done  as  wickedly  as  the  nations  which  they  were 
commanded  to  destroy  :  "  They  sacrifice  upon  the  tops 
of  the  mour,.tains,  and  burn  incense  upon  the  hills, 
under  oaks  and  poplars  and  elms."  In  Deuteronomy 
xii.,  2,  where  the  practices  of  the  nations  are  described, 
the  same  phrases  are  used,  except  that,  in  the  last 
clause,  the  prophet  has  substituted  specific  names  for 
"every  green  tree."  In  chapter  v.,  6,  the  prophet  says 
it  will  not  be  with  them  now  as  it  was  of  old,  when 
they  "go  with  their  flocks  and  with  their  herds  "  to 
seek  the  Lord,  for  he  will  have  withdrawn  from  them 
on  account  of  their  wickedness.  In  describing  the  sac- 
rifices which  the  people  offered  to  the  Lord,  in  the 
Pentateuch  the  phrase  "with  your  flocks  and  with 
your  herds  "  is  very  common.  Why  were  "  the  princes 
of  Judah  like  them  that  remove  the  landmark " 
("bound,"  c.v.),  and  upon  whom  the  prophet  declares 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETICAL    BOOKS.  II9 

that  the  Lord  will  "  pour  out  his  wrath  like  water  "  ? 
Because  in  Deuteronomy  xxvii.,  17,  it  is  said,  ^'■Cursed 
be  he  that  removeth  his  neighbor's  landmark."     This 
reference  is  too  striking  to  admit  of  doubt.     And  the 
prophet  continues,  "  Ephraim  is  oppressed  and  crushed 
[c.v.,    broken   in   judgment]    because    he   forsook    the 
Lord  "  ;  just  as  it  is  declared  it  shall  happen  unto  the 
nation,  if  they  forsake  God,  in  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  n  : 
"  Thou  shalt  be  only  oppressed  and  crushed  alway." 
In  chapter  v.,  15,  and  vi.,  i,  we  read,  "  In  their  affliction 
they  will  seek  me  early,"  and  say,  "  Come,  let  us  return 
unto  the  Lord,  for  he  hath  torn  and  he  will  heal  us  ;  he 
hath  smitten  and  he  will  bind  us  up."     This  is  a  fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophecy  in  Deuteronomy  iv.,  30,  "  When 
thou  art  in  affliction  [c.v.,  tribulation],  ...  in  the  latter 
days,  and  thou  turn  to  the  Lord  thy  God  "  ;  and  in 
Deuteronomy  xxxii.,  39,  "  I  kill  and  I  make  alive  ;  I 
wound  and  I  heal ;  neither  is  there  any  one  that  can 
deliver  out  of  my  hand."     Compare  with  this  Hosea 
v.,  4,  "  I  will  tear,  .  .  .  and  none  shall    deliver  "  (c.v., 
rescue).     In  chapter  vii.,  10,  the  people  are  reproved 
because,  after  all  their  afflictions,  "  they  do  not  return 
to  the  Lord  their  God,  nor  seek  him,"  as  required  in 
Deuteronomy  iv.,   29,  30.     The    declaration,    "  I    will 
chastise  them,  as  hath  been  proclaimed  in  their  congre- 
gation "  (c.v.,  "as  their  congregation  hath  heard  "),  chap- 
ter vii.,  12,  is  to  the  point,  as  the  laws  were  usually  said 
to  be  proclaimed  "  to  the  congregation  "  in  the  Penta- 
teuch.    And  here  seems  to  be  an  explicit  reference  to 
punishments  which  had  been  threatened  to  the  people 
at  that  time.     In  chapter  viii.,  6,  there  is  an  apparent 
reference  in  the  original  to  the  calf  which  was  burned  at 


120  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

Horeb.  The  prophet  says,  "  The  calf  of  Samaria  shall 
be  broken  in  pieces "  (made  "  kindlings  "  literally). 
In  the  twelfth  verse  there  is  the  explicit  declaration, 
"  I  have  written  to  him  the  great  things  of  my  law  "  ; 
or,  as  it  should  be  translated,  "  I  have  written  for  him 
many  laws ;  but  they  were  counted  as  a  strange  thing." 
Here  we  have  proof  that  the  laws  quoted  were  written, 
and  these  laws  are  found  word  for  word  in  the  Penta- 
teuch. In  the  next  verse  is  quoted  the  remarkable 
prophecy  in  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  68,  "  They  shall  re- 
turn to  Egypt."  In  chapter  ix.,  4,  in  speaking  of  the 
calamity  of  the  impending  captivity,  he  says,  "  They 
shall  not  offer  wine-offerings  to  the  Lord ;  .  .  .  their 
sacrifices  shall  be  unto  them  as  the  bread  of  mourners  ; 
all  that  eat  thereof  shall  be  polluted."  In  Leviticus 
xix.  is  a  full  statement  of  the  defiled  condition  of 
all  who  are  mourning.  In  the  fifth  verse,  it  is  asked, 
"What  will  ye  do  in  the  solemn  day  [/>.,  feast  days 
generally],  and  in  the  day  of  the  feast  of  the  Lord  1 " 
(i.e.,  of  the  Passover,  or  some  other  of  the  three  great 
feasts), —  showing  that  feast  days  were  observed  at  this 
time  in  Israel.  The  historical  allusions  in  this  chapter 
are  too  numerous  for  quotation.  The  feast  of  the  tab- 
ernacles was  celebrated  in  Israel ;  for  in  chapter  xii.,  9, 
we  read,  "  I  will  yet  make  thee  to  dwell  in  tabernacles, 
as  in  the  days  of  the  solemn  feasts  "  (feast).  In  verse 
14,  it  is  said  of  Ephraim,  "  He  shall  leave  his  blood 
upon  him,"  which  is  a  phrase  used  in  the  Law  to  show 
the  penalty  which  hangs  over  the  evil-doer,  Leviticus 
XX.,  9:  "He  that  curseth  his  father  or  his  mother,  his 
blood  shall  be  upon  him,"  i.e.,  he  shall  be  put  to  death. 
But   I    must   not   dwell    upon    the  writings   of   this 


EVIDENCE   FROM   THE   POETICAL   BOOKS.  121 

prophet  any  longer.  We  find  that  he  speaks  of  the 
Law,  sometimes  ahnost  makes  a  formal  quotation  from 
it,  and  in  almost  innumerable  instances  makes  use  of 
its  language.  I  have  marked  more  than  twice  as  many 
clear  references  to  the  Law  as  I  have  quoted.  But,  if 
these  are  not  sufficient  to  convince  the  reader,  no  num- 
ber would  be.  They  most  clearly  identify  the  Law 
which  was  "  written,"  and  with  which  Hosea  was  famil- 
iar, with  the  Pentateuch  of  Ezra,  of  the  son  of  Sirach, 
of  Josephus,  and  of  Martin  Luther.  His  prophecy  is 
as  full  of  allusions  to  the  Pentateuch,  and  his  style  par- 
takes as  much  of  its  flavor,  as  the  sermons  of  the  Puri- 
tans do  of  the  Bible  ;  and  one  would  as  soon  think  of 
denying  that  John  Robinson  or  John  Cotton  had  our 
New  Testament  as  that  Hosea  had  our  Pentateuch. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  ritual  and  priesthood  were  exist- 
ing in  perfection,  and  that  the  Pentateuch  was  in  the 
hands  of  Malachi  substantially  as  we  have  it  to-day, 
yet  he  does  not  refer  to  its  contents  or  to  the  ceremo- 
nies of  the  ritual  any  more  frequently  than  Hosea,  who 
lived  three  hundred  years  before  him.  If  Hosea  makes 
as  free  use  of  it  as  Malachi,  why  is  it  not  conclusive 
evidence  that  he  had  it?  This  inference  can  be  over- 
come only  by  very  weighty  objections. 

(9)  I  must  make  some  examination  of  the  writings 
of  Amos,  who  was  a  little  earlier  than  Hosea.  In  chap- 
ter ii.,  7,  our  translation  reads,  "  and  turn  aside  the 
way  of  the  meek"  :  it  should  be  rendered,  "wrest  the 
judgment  of  the  weak,"  which  agrees  with  Exodus 
xxiii.,  6,  "Thou  shalt  not  wrest  the  judgment  of  thy 
poor."  An  abominable  sin  is  spoken  of  in  the  same 
verse,  which  the  Lord  says  "profanes  his  holy  name," 


122  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

—  a  verbal  reference  to  Leviticus  xx.,  3  :  I  will  set  my 
face  against  that  man  who  "  profanes  my  holy  name." 
The  wicked  people  are  said  (verse  8)  "  to  lay  them- 
selves down  upon  clothes  laid  to  pledge."  Exodus 
xxii.,  26,  forbids  this,  and  requires  that  "raiment  taken 
to  pledge  "  shall  be  delivered  to  the  owner  when  "  the 
sun  goeth  down."  The  phrase,  verse  10,  "  and  led  you 
forty  years  in  the  wilderness,"  is  a  verbal  quotation 
from  Deuteronomy  xxix.,  5.  The  people  are  rebuked, 
verse  12,  for  giving  "the  Nazarites  wine  to  drink." 
Why  not?  In  Numbers  vi.,  3,  the  Nazarites'  vow  to 
abstain  from  wine  is  given. 

The  fourth  chapter  of  Amos  is  so  filled  with  refer- 
ences to  the  Pentateuch  that  a  specific  enumeration  of 
them  would  be  impossible  in  this  study.  Not  less 
than  a  dozen  instances  of  the  use  of  language  to  be 
found  in  the  different  books  of  the  Pentateuch  could 
be  quoted.  I  must  content  myself  with  a  condensed 
summary,  leaving  the  reader  who  is  interested  in  this 
examination  to  pursue  it  into  its  details  at  his  leisure. 
"  Bring  your  sacrifices  every  morning,"  Numbers  xxviii., 
3,  4,  "  and  your  tithes  after  three  years,"  Deuteronomy 
xiv.,  28,  which  reads,  "  At  the  end  of  three  years,  thou 
shalt  bring  forth  all  the  tithe  of  thine  increase  "  ;  a 
very  clear  reference.  "  Offer  a  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving 
with  leaven,"  Leviticus  ii.,  11,  "and  publish  the  free 
offerings,"  Leviticus  xxii.,  18.  "I  have  given  you  want 
of  bread,"  Leviticus  xxvi.,  26,  "yet  have  ye  not  returned 
to  me,  saith  the  Lord."  This  last  phrase  is  used  sev- 
eral times  in  this  chapter,  and  has  evident  reference 
to  Deuteronomy  iv.,  30,  where  the  people  are  exhorted, 
in  their  troubles,  "  to  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God."     "  I 


EVIDENCE   FROM   THE   POETICAL   BOOKS.  1 23 

have  smitten  you  with  blasting  and  mildew,"  Deuteron- 
omy xxviii.,  22.  "I  have  sent  among  you  the  pestilence, 
after  the  manner  of  Egypt,"  as  predicted  in  Leviticus 
xxvL,  25  ;  Deuteronomy  vii.,  15  ;  xxviii ,  27.  In  chap- 
ter v.,  II,  the  prophet  says,  "Ye  have  built  houses  of 
hewn  stone,  but  ye  shall  not  dwell  in  them  " ;  Deuter- 
onomy xxviii.,  30,  where  it  is  said,  "  Thou  shalt  build 
an  house,  and  thou  shalt  not  dwell  therein,"  Further, 
the  prophet  says,  "  Ye  have  planted  pleasant  vineyards, 
but  ye  shall  not  drink  wine  of  them  " ;  predicted  in 
Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  39,  "  Thou  shalt  plant  vineyards, 
.  .  .  but  shalt  not  drink  of  the  wine."  The  prophet  de- 
nounces them,  because  "  they  afiflict  the  just,  they  take 
a  bribe,"  Exodus  xxiii,,  8,  Deuteronomy  xvi.,  19,  declare 
"Thou  shalt  not  wrest  judgment,  thou  shalt  not  respect 
persons,  neither  take  a  gift"  (bribe).  In  verse  17,  he 
says,  "  I  will  pass  through  thee  "  as  I  passed  through 
the  land  of  Egypt  on  the  dreadful  night  when  the  first- 
born were  slain  and  you  were  preserved.  Now  you 
will  be  punished,  and  a  great  "  wailing  "  will  be  heard 
among  you,  as  a  "great  cry"  was  raised  by  Pharaoh 
and  his  servants.  (Exodus  xii.,  30.)  The  Lord  ex- 
presses his  dislike  (verses  21,  22)  of  their  "feasts," 
their  "  solemn  assemblies,"  their  "  burnt-offerings  and 
meat-offerings,"  and  of  their  "  peace-offerings."  (Num- 
bers xxix.,  25  ;  Leviticus  xxiii.,  36  ;  Deuteronomy  xvi.) 
The  prophet  accuses  the  oppressors  of  the  people  of 
being  so  greedy  of  gain  as  to  say,  chap,  viii,,  5,  "  When 
will  the  ?ieiv  moon  be  gone  that  we  may  sell  corn,  and 
the  Sabbath  that  we  may  set  forth  [open]  wheat ,?  "  A 
remarkable  resemblance  exists  in  the  original  between 
the  words  marked  in  italics  and  those  in  Genesis  xli., 


124  ^   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

56,  "  And  Joseph  opened  all  the  storehouses  and  sold 
unto  the  Egyptians."  No  "  servile  work "  could  be 
done  on  the  new  moon  of  the  seventh  month,  or  the 
beginning  of  the  civil  year.  Leviticus  xxiii.,  24,  25. 
He  further  charges  these  greedy  traffickers  with  "  mak- 
ing the  ephah  small,"  Deuteronomy  xxv.,  14,  "and  the 
shekel  great,"  Deuteronomy  xxv.,  13,  "and  falsifying 
the  balances  by  deceit."  Leviticus  xix.,  36,  requires 
"just  balances."  When  carried  captive,  the  wicked 
people  would  not  escape  suffering,  for  the  Lord  says  to 
them  by  the  mouth  of  the  prophet,  chapter  ix.,  4, 
"  Thence  will  I  command  the  sword,  and  it  shall  slay 
them  "  (those  in  captivity),  which  is  a  reiteration  of  the 
threatening  in  Deuteronomy  xxviii.,  65,  and  Leviticus 
xxvi.,  ■T^}^^  "  I  will  draw  out  a  sword  after  you  among  the 
heathen."  In  the  same  chapter,  eighth  verse,  the  Lord 
says,  "  I  will  destroy  it  [Israel]  from  off  the  face  of  the 
earth,"  which  is  a  verbal  repetition  of  the  punishment 
threatened  in  Deuteronomy  vi.,  15,  "The  Lord  thy 
God  . . .  will  destroy  thee  from  off  the  face  of  the  earth." 
These  quotations  from  Amos  make  it  evident  that  he 
was  familiar  with  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch.  He 
rebukes  Israel  for  violating  the  laws  therein  contained, 
and  writes  precisely  as  if  the  contents  of  that  book  were 
as  familiar  to  him  as  the  contents  of  the  gospel  were  to 
John  Bunyan.  He  calls  the  book  by  the  name  which 
it  has  had  through  all  succeeding  years  up  to  his  time. 
In  giving  a  general  reason  for  the  punishment  which 
would  come  upon  tie  people,  he  says,  in  chapter  ii.,  4, 
"  They  have  despised  the  Law  of  the  Lord,  and  have 
not  kept  his  connnandments,"  a  direct  reference  to  the 
tlireat  in  Leviticus  xxvi.,   15,  where  it  is  said,  "If  ye 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETRAL    BOOKS,  1 25 

shall  despise  my  statutes,"  the  most  terrible  calamities 
shall  fall  upon  you.  The  customs,  rites,  worship  which 
the  prophet  describes  are  all  identical  with  those  spoken 
of  in  "  The  Law." 

It  is  important  to  remember  that  both  Hosea  and 
Amos  prophesied  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  They 
addressed  the  rulers,  princes,  priests,  and  people  of 
that  nation  as  if  f/icy  were  familiar  with  the  Law.  They 
speak  of  them  as  keeping  the  feast  days,  the  new 
moons,  and  the  Sabbaths.  Is  it  improbable  that  the 
people  of  Israel  had  a  copy  of  the  Law,  whose  contents 
are  so  fully  stated  in  these  prophecies  ?  It  is  further 
to  be  remembered  that  Amos  was  "  no  prophet,"  that 
is,  by  education,  "  nor  the  son  of  a  prophet " ;  he  was 
a  "shepherd  and  a  gatherer  of  sycamore  fruit."  If, 
then,  he  was  so  familiar  with  "  The  Law,"  never  hav- 
ing been  educated  in  it,  how  much  of  its  language  must 
have  been  on  the  lips  of  those  who  had  attended  the 
schools  of  the  prophets  .-'  There  is  more  reason  than 
some  scholars  are  willing  to  allow  for  referring  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  to  a  much  earlier  age  than  is 
commonly  assigned  to  it.  It  is  by  no  means  improb- 
able that  copies  of  "  The  Law  "  existed  in  the  northern 
kingdom  before  the  captivity,  and  that  the  people  who 
were  left  in  the  land  had  copies  with  them,  and  that  it 
has  been  handed  down  among  that  people  from  age  to 
age,  to  the  present  day.  If  such  a  supposition  is  rea- 
sonable, the  existence  of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  is 
evidence  of  the  high  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew  Penta- 
teuch. 

But  I  do  not  rest  this  argument  on  any  such  basis.  I 
am  tracing  references  to  *' The  Law,"  the  Pentateuch, 


126  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

back  through  the  Hebrew  writings  that  have  come 
down  to  us ;  and  we  find  abundant  evidence  of  its  exist- 
ence in  the  writings  of  the  two  prophets  who  were  sent 
to  prophesy  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  But  this  aside. 
We  must  pursue  our  inquiry  still  further, 

ID,  Next  in  order  comes  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  who 
was  a  little  the  predecessor  of  Amos,  at  least  in  the 
opinion  of  some  scholars ;  but  he  prophesied  to  the 
kingdom  of  Judah. 

The  prophecy  of  Joel  is  very  brief,  covering  but  a 
few  pages.  The  whole  spirit  of  his  prophecy  is  derived 
from  "The  Law."  His  promises  and  threatenings  are 
all  derived  from  those  contained  in  "  The  Law."  He 
says,  "The  meat-offering  and  the  drink-ofifering  is  cut 
off  from  the  house  of  the  Lord ;  the  priests  mourn." 
"  The  harvest  of  the  field  is  perished,  the  river  is  dried 
up,  the  fig-tree  languisheth  ;  .  .  .  call  a  solemn  assem- 
bly," for  the  "  locust  hath  eaten "  up  the  harvest. 
Compare  with  these  expressions  Deuteronomy  xxviii., 
38-42.  In  the  second  chapter,  the  prophet  directs 
them  to  call  an  assembly.  "  Blow  ye  the  trumpet,"  says 
he.  In  Numbers  x.,  3,  we  find  that  this  was  the  ap- 
pointed method  of  calling  an  assembly.  He  says, 
describing  the  locusts,  "  There  hath  not  been  ever  the 
like,  neither  shall  there  be  any  more  after  it,  even  to 
the  years  of  many  generations."  This  is  a  clear  ref- 
erence to  Exodus  x.,  14,  where,  describing  the  locusts 
of  the  plague  in  Egypt,  the  writer  says,  "  Before  them 
there  were  no  such  locusts  as  they,  neither  after  them 
shall  there  be  such."  In  chapter  ii.,  13,  the  prophet 
exhorts  the  people  to  repent,  assuring  them  that  the 
Lord  God  "is   gracious  and  merciful,  slow  to  anger, 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETICAL   BOOKS.  1 27 

and  of  great  kindness  " ;  an  assurance  which  he  could 
well  give,  for,  Exodus  xxxiv.,  6,  the  Lord  himself  de- 
scended in  a  cloud,  and  proclaimed,  "The  Lord  God, 
merciful  and  gracious,  long-suffering,  and  abundant  in 
goodness  and  truth."  The  prophet  further  says  that 
the  Lord  will  leave  a  blessing  behind  him,  "  a  meat- 
offering and  a  drink-offering."  Most  earnestly  he  im- 
plores the  people  "to  blow  the  trumpet,  to  proclaim  a 
solemn  assembly,  to  appoint  a  congregation,  ...  to 
let  the  priests  weep  between  the  porch  and  the  altar, 
and  say,  Spare  thy  people,  O  Lord,  and  give  not  their 
heritage  to  reproach,  that  the  heathen  should  use  a  by 
word  against  them  "  (marginal  reading).  In  Deuter- 
onomy xxviii.,  37,  the  people  are  threatened,  if  they 
sin,  with  the  punishment  of  becoming  "  a  proverb  and 
a  by-word  among  all  nations."  The  reference  is  clenr. 
Joel's  prophecy  is  filled  with  Mosaic  terms,  and  with 
the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  Law.  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  Hosea,  Amos,  and  Joel,  whose  references 
to  Deuteronomy  are  so  numerous,  wrote  a  century  and 
more  before  Hilkiah  forged  it,  according  to  Kuenen.* 
II.  The  testimony  of  two  more  books  yet  remains 
to  be  examined,  the  Proverbs  and  Psalms.  In  Ecclesi- 
astes  and  Solomon's  Song,  we  find  nothing  to  our  pur- 
pose, nor  should  we  expect  to.  Nor  should  we  expect 
to  find  much  light  on  our  theme  in  the  Book  of  Proverbs. 
The  subject  of  the  book  forbids  it.  Yet  even  here  are 
there  some  hints  of  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch. 

*  Yet,  notwithstanding  this  evidence  that  the  prophetic  writings  are  saturated 
with  the  spirit  and  sprinkled  all  over  with  the  phrases  and  ceremonies  of  the 
Pentateuch,  a  writer  in  the  Unitarian  Review  for  November,  iSSo,  p.  427,  asks 
in  a  tone  of  haughiy  challenge,  "  What  reference  to  Mosaic  law  or  Mosaic  rites 
can  you  find  in  any  of  the  earlier  prophets  ? "  "  What  appeal  to  their  authority  ?  " 


128  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

King  Lemuel's  mother  taught  him,  chapter  xxxi.,  5,  that 
princes  should  not  drink  wine  lest  they  "forget  tlie 
Law,  and  pervert  the  judgment  of  any  that  are  afflicted." 
Deuteronomy  xxiv.,  17,  Exodus  xxiii.,  6,  "Thou  shilt 
not  pervert  judgment."  In  chapter  xxviii.,  4,  7,  9,  "  The 
Law"  is  spoken  of.  So  also  in  chapter  xxix.,  18,  we 
read,  "  Pie  that  keepeth  the  Law,  happy  is  he,"  "  but 
where  there  is  no  vision  the  people  perish."  Other 
passages  of  like  character  are  found  in  the  book  which 
it  is  unnecessary  to  quote,  as  they  add  nothing  to  our 
argument.  Davidson  says.  Vol.  II.,  p.  342,  "The  Prov- 
erbs are  ethical  maxims  deduced  from  the  Mosaic  Law 
an  '[  Divine  Providence."  The  Book  of  Psalms  con- 
tains lyric  poems,  for  the  most  part,  which  were  com- 
posed during  a  long  period  of  the  nation's  existence. 
Some  were  probably  composed  before  the  time  of 
David,  many  by  him,  and  by  his  contemporaries  and 
immediate  successors,  and  some  as  late  as  after  the 
return  from  captivity.  If  we  could  certainly  select 
those  of  the  earliest  date,  they  would  be  much  more  to 
our  purpose  than  those  composed  at  a  later  period.  As 
in  many  cases  such  a  distinction  cannot  accurately  be 
made,  I  shall  quote  from  those  which  are  more  gener- 
ally conceded  to  be  of  the  earlier  class,  after  I  have 
drawn  a  few  illustrations  from  those  of  a  confessedly 
later  period.  The  seventy-eighth  psalm  is  supposed  to 
have  been  written  much  later  than  the  time  of  David. 
It  is  an  historical  poem,  and  repeats  the  most  prominent 
incidents  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch.  It  speaks  dis- 
tinctly of  the  "covenant  of  God,"  and  declares  that  the 
people  refused  in  early  times  "  to  walk  in  his  Law  "  ; 
that  "  he  established  a  testimony  in   Jacob,  and  ap- 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETICAL    HOOKS.  1 29 

poitiled  a  Law  in  Israel,"  which  he  commanded  the 
fathers  to  "make  known  to  their  children."  Deuter- 
onomy iv.,  9,  vi.,  7,  xi.,  19,  require  that  the  Law  should 
be  taught  to  the  children.  The  use  of  the  language  of 
the  Pentateuch  in  this  psalm  is  so  pervading  that  I 
must  ask  readers  to  examine  it  for  themselves  in  con- 
nection with  this  argument.  To  make  quotations  is 
impossible.  Psalm  cxix.  is  a  very  artistic  poem,  con- 
structed with  express  reference  to  the  Law,  the  statutes, 
the  commandments,  and  the  judgments  of  the  Lord. 
Through  one  hundred  and  seventy-six  verses,  it  labors, 
with  all  variety  of  phrase,  to  extol  "The  Law"  of  the 
Lord,  and  inculcate  obedience  to  all  its  "  statutes." 
In  Psalm  xcvii.,  the  writer  says  that  the  Lord  spake  to 
his  people  "  in  the  cloudy  pillar ;  they  kept  his  testimo- 
nies and  the  ordinance  that  he  gave  them."  In  Psalm 
Ixxxix.,  30-32,  the  writer,  enumerating  the  calamities 
which  shall  rest  upon  the  house  of  David,  says,  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  "  If  his  children  forsake  my  Law, 
and  walk  not  in  my  judgments ;  if  they  break  my  stat- 
utes, and  keep  not  my  commandments  ;  then  will  I  visit 
their  transgression  with  the  rod."  Moses  is  spoken  of 
as  one  to  whom  God  had  made  himself  known,  ciii.,  7  ; 
cv.,  26  ;  cvi.,  16,  23,  32.  These  psalms  are  also  filled 
with  the  incidents  and  language  of  the  Pentateuch,  In 
Psalm  xix.  there  is  a  comparison  made  between  the  in- 
struction given  in  the  works  of  Nature  and  that  which 
is  given  in  "  The  Law  of  the  Lord."  "  The  Law  of  the 
Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul ;  the  testimony  of 
the  Lord  is  sure,  making  wise  the  simple.  The  statutes 
of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the  heart;  the  command- 
ment of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes.     The 


130  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

fear  [by  metonymy,  that  which  teaches  us  the  fear]  of 
the  Lord  is  clean,  enduring  forever ;  the  judgments  of 
the  Lord  are  true  and  righteous  altogether."  In  Psalm 
xl.,  8,  we  have  a  very  clear  statement  of  the  existence 
of  books  in  the  time  of  David.  "  In  the  volume  of  the 
book  it  is  written  of  me,  .  .  .  Thy  law  is  within  my 
heart."  As  it  has  been  suggested  that  this  may  be  a 
figurative  reference  to  God's  purposes,  not  to  any  literal 
volume,  I  do  not  press  the  inference  that  it  refers  to 
the  Book  of  the  Law,  but  simply  say  that  it  proves  the 
existence  of  written  books  in  the  time  of  David  ;  and  we 
have  seen  already  that,  I.  Kings  ii.,  3,  David  charges 
Solomon  to  keep  the  "  statutes  and  commandments  and 
judgments  and  testimonies  "  of  the  Lord,  "  as  it  is  writ- 
ten in  the  Law  of  Moses."  The  poem  and  the  history 
agree.  In  Psalm  i.,  2,  it  is  said  that  the  delight  of  the 
good  man  "  is  in  the  Law  of  the  Lord,  and  in  his  Law 
doth  he  meditate  day  and  night." 

These  references  to  the  Pentateuch,  under  the  same 
names  which  we  have  found  in  use  from  the  time  of 
Paul  and  the  Son  of  Sirach,  are  proof  of  the  existence 
of  the  same  work  which  Paul  and  the  Son  of  Sirach 
used,  unless  some  proof  can  be  brought  that  it  was 
remodelled  between  these  periods.  Of  such  a  trans- 
formation, history  does  not  record  a  syllable  :  therefore 
the  work  is  the  same  as  that  to  which  David  and  the 
Psalmists  alluded,  as  that  which  Paul  and  the  Son  of 
Sirach  used,  unless  internal  evidence,  derived  from  the 
book  itself,  can  be  brought  to  show  the  contrary.  To 
that  internal  evidence,  I  shall  attend  in  due  time.  I 
now  confine  myself  to  the  historical  evidence. 

But  we  find  not  only  the  old  names,  but  also  the 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETICAL    BOOKS.  I31 

style  of  the  Pentateuch  introduced  into  the  Psalms,  its 
facts  alluded  to,  its  rites  mentioned.     I  will  notice  a 
few  of  the  latter.     In  Psalm  xix.,  i,  there  is  the  same 
distinction  between  the  heavens  and  the  firmament  as 
in  Genesis   i.     The  word  "  firmament "  is   a   peculiar 
one,  and  is   doubtless  used   by  the  Psalmist   on   that 
account.     Psalm  xxxiii.,  6,  7,  teaches  us  that  "By  the 
word  of  the  Lord  v/ere  the  heavens  made  "  (Genesis  i., 
14,  "And  God  said,  Let  there  be  lights  in  the  firma- 
ment"), "and  all  the  host  of  them  by  the  breath  of 
his  mouth"  (Genesis  ii.,  i,."Thus   the   heavens   and 
earth  were  finished,  and  all  the  host  of  them  ").     "  He 
gathereth  the  waters  of  the  sea  together  as  a  heap  " 
(Genesis  i.,  9,  "And  God  said,  Let  the  waters  ...  be 
gathered  together  into  one  place  ").     In  Psalm  Ixxxi., 
3-5,  there  is  a  direct  reference  to  the  time  when  a  stat- 
ute there  named  was  enacted :  "  Blow  the  trumpet  in 
the  new  moon  "  (Numbers  x.,  10,  "  In  the  beginnings  of 
your  month  [i.e.,  new  moons],  ye  shall  blow  with  the 
trumpets  "),  "in  the  time  appointed,  on  our  solemn  feast 
day  ;  for  this  is  a  statute  for  Israel  and  a  law  of  the 
God  of   Jacob.     This  he   ordained  .  .  .  when   he  went 
out   through   [of]  the  land  of   Egypt."     Verse  6,   "I 
removed   from   his  shoulder  the  burden"  (Exodus   i., 
11).     In  Psalm  xv.,  3-5,  we  read   that   a   good   man 
" backbiteth  not  with  his  tongue"  (Leviticus  xix.,  16), 
"nor  taketh  up  a  reproach  against  his  neighbor"  (Exo- 
dus xxiii.,  i).    "  He  putteth  not  out  his  money  to  usury  " 
(Exodus  xxii.,  25),  "nor  taketh  a  reward  against  the 
innocent"  (Exodus   xxiii.,  8).     "He   sweareth   to   his 
own    hurt,    and    changeth   not  "   (Numbers    xxx.,    2). 
These  references  are  all  too  distinct  to  be  mistaken. 


132  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

" Burnt-olTerings  and  sin-offerings"  are  spoken  of  in 
xl.,  6;  li.,  19;  Ixvi.,  13,  15  :  "I  will  go  into  th)  house 
with  burnt-offerings  ;  .  .  .  I  will  offer  unto  thee  burnt 
sacrifices  of  fatlings,  with  the  incense  of  rams."  Psalm 
cxxxiii.,  the  "precious  ointment  that  ran  down  on 
Aaron's  beard  "  refers  to  his  anointing  (Leviticus  viii., 
12),  where  Moses  is  said  to  pour  the  "  anointing  oil  " 
on  Aaron's  head. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  accumulate  these  quotations 
any  further.  It  is  evident  that,  upon  the  supposition  of 
the  existence  and  familiar  use  of  the  Pentateuch  by 
the  writers  of  the  Psalms,  we  could  not  expect  to  find 
more  frequent  allusions  to  the  book,  nor  more  evident 
use  of  its  words  and  phrases,  than  we  do  find.  Hence, 
the  argument  is  as  full  and  cogent  from  this  quarter  as 
is  required  for  my  purpose. 

I  have  now  closed  my  examination  of  the  historical 
and  poetical  writings  of  the  Jewish  nation  back  to  the 
time  of  David.  And,  all  through  both  classes  of  writ- 
ings, we  find  not  only  the  ^if/e  of  the  Pentateuch 
named  in  references  to  it,  but  we  also  find  constant 
use  of  its  sfy/e,  and  allusion  to  its  rites,  ceremonies, 
and  laws.  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  no  writing  which 
has  come  down  to  our  day  from  a  remote  antiquity  can 
show  such  an  array  of  historical  evidence  attesting  its 
age  as  the  writings  of  the  Jews  furnish  to  the  existence 
of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  time  of  David.  The  book 
which  David  referred  Solomon  to  as  the  "  Law  of 
Moses,"  in  which  were  "  written  the  statutes,  com- 
mandments, judgments,  and  testimonies  of  the  Lord," 
is  the  book  which  now  lies  open  before  me,  or  else  I 


EVIDENCE    FROM    THE    POETICAL    BOOK.S.  1 33 

have  no  reason  or  right  to  speak  of  the  history  of 
Thucydides  as  being  in  our  hands.  Those  who  are 
not  accustomed  to  inquiries  of  this  kind  may  not  be 
aware  of  the  superior  amount  and  quality  of  the  evi- 
dence which  can  be  adduced  in  favor  of  the  existence 
of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  time  of  David,  over  that 
which  can  be  produced  in  favor  of  the  early  origin  of 
any  other  work  of  remote  antiquity  which  has  come 
into  our  hands,  and  which,  nevertheless,  we  accept  as 
being  sustained  by  all  the  evidence  which,  under  the 
circumstances,  could  be  expected. 

Let  us  remember,  too,  the  period  at  which  we  have 
arrived.  We  are  within  four  hundred  years  or  less  of 
the  time  in  which  Moses  lived,  who  is  supposed  by 
David  to  have  written  these  laws.  The  golden  age  of 
Hebrew  literature  is  fixed  at  this  period.  A  glorious 
temple  was  to  be  erected  in  which  the  worship  of 
Jehovah,  as  prescribed  in  "The  Law,"  could  be 
offered.  The  schools  of  the  prophets  had  been  send- 
ing out  scholars  into  all  parts  of  the  land  for  a  hun- 
dred years.  It  is  incredible  that  a  book  containing  the 
fundamental  laws  of  such  a  nation,  on  an  obedience  to 
which  rested  their  national  destiny,  could  have  been  so 
universally  referred  to  their  great  lav/-giver,  if  indeed 
he  had  no  hand  in  its  composition.  Had  we  no  frag- 
ments of  history  relating  to  the  period  between  David 
and  Moses,  we  could  not  hesitate  to  refer  the  book  to 
him  to  whom  it  was  referred  at  this  period.  The  men 
of  that  age  were  abundantly  capable  of  determining 
such  a  question.  They  were  under  the  most  impera- 
tive obligation  to  determine  it  correctly,  and  there  is 
no  more  reason,  historically,  to  suppose  them    to   be 


134  A.   STUDY   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

mistaken  than  we  have  to  suppose  that  the  English 
monarchs  and  scholars  are  mistaken  in  referring  the 
Doomsday  Book  to  the  time  of  William  the  Con- 
queror. 

SECTION    IV.       FROM    DAVID   TO   MOSES. 

As  far  as  external  historical  evidence  is  concerned,  I 
might  pause  here.  But  there  are  some  earlier  writings, 
some  portions  of  which  were  composed  probabl}^  before 
the  time  of  David,  or  during  his  reign, —  namely, 
Joshua  and  Judges ;  and  some  which,  though  relating 
to  the  times  previous  to  him,  were  not  composed  till 
a  later  period, —  namely,  the  Books  of  Joshua  and 
Samuel. 

To  understand  the  value  of  the  evidence  rendered 
by  these  books  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch,  a 
word  is  necessary  respecting  their  age  and  contents. 
The  Book  of  Joshua  was  written  before  the  close  of 
the  reign  of  Solomon,  if  we  can  rely  upon  the  state- 
ment made  in  chapter  xvi,,  lo,  where  it  is  said,  "The 
Canaanites  dwell  among  the  Ephraimites  [in  Gezer] 
unto  this  day."  But,  in  I.  Kings  ix.,  16,  we  read 
that  Pharaoh  "took  Gezer,  burned  it  with  fire,  slew 
the  Canaanites,  and  gave  it  as  a  present  to  his 
daughter,  Solomon's  wife."  The  book  may  have  been 
composed  earlier,  even  in  the  reign  of  Saul,  or  during 
the  life  of  Samuel.  There  is  nothing  in  the  style  or 
contents  of  the  book  which  requires  a  later  author. 
The  contents  of  the  book  are  such  as  rather  to  forbid 
than  admit  any  specific  quotations  from  the  Pentateuch, 
consisting,  as  they  do  in  the  first  half,  of  a  description 
of   passing   over  Jordan,  and   of   the   battles   of   the 


FROM    DAVID  TO   MOSES.  I35 

conquest,  and,  in  the  last  half,  of  a  coiidensecl  state- 
ment of  the  boundaries  of  the  tribes  and  their  cities.* 
The  Book  of  Judges  tells  us,  in  chapter  i.,  21,  that 
"the  Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children  of  Benjamin  in 
Jerusalem  unto  this  day,"  which  shows,  if  the  passage 
can  be  relied  upon,  that  the  book,  or  the  main  part  of 
it,  must  have  been  written  before  the  end  of  David's 
reign,  since  in  II.  Samuel,  chapter  v.,  6-8,  we  learn 
that  David  drove  the  Jebusites  out  of  Jerusalem,  and 
took  the  stronghold  of  Zion  and  dwelt  in  it.  A  passage 
in  the  appendix  of  the  book,  which  was  added  at  a 
later  date,  chapter  xviii.,  30,  would  probably  place  this 
addition  as  late  as  721  B.C.  "The  day  of  the  captivity 
of  the  land"  is  spoken  of.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
language  or  contents  of  the  body  of  the  book  to  forbid 
its  composition  in  the  early  years  of  the  monarchy, 
since  its  descriptions  of  the  anarchical  condition  of 
the  people  have  very  much  the  appearance  of  an  apol- 
ogy or  good  reason  for  a  stronger  and  consolidated 
government,  as  well  as  of  an  illustration  of  the  peril  of 
"  doing  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord."  The  subject  of 
both  the  book  and  its  appendix  is  such  as  not  to  require 
or  even  perinit  many  references  to  the  Pentateuch, 
made  up  as  it  is  of  battles  and  exploits  of  heroes  and 
heroines,  and  devoting  four  chapters  to  the  freaks  and 

•Davidson  says  ( /«/r^.  O.  T.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  415):  "The  ecclesiastical  state  of 
llij  i^eople  under  Joshua  appears  to  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  divine 
law.  There  was  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  priests,  a  high  priest  Eleazer,  Leviti- 
cal  cities.  Circumcision  and  the  passover  were  observed.  The  tabernacle  was 
set  up,  and  the  congregation  assembled  beside  it.  [Dr.  Oort,  Bible /or  Learners, 
savs,  "The  tabernacle  never  really  existed  except  in  the  ima.'jnation  'l  the 
writer  "  (of  Exodus),  who  lived  after  the  captivity.]  The  Reubenites,  Gadites,  and 
liaif-tribe  of  Manasseh 'kept  al)   that  Moses,  the  servant  of  God,  comniandLd 

thriin.'  " 


136  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

follies  and  feats  and  gallantries  of  the  renowned  ath- 
lete, Samson. 

The  Books  of  Samuel,  down  to  the  reign  of  David, 
appear  to  be  closely  connected  with  the  succeeding  his- 
tory, and  very  probably  were  the  production  of  the  au- 
thor of  the  history  of  that  reign,  whose  writings  were 
used  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of  Kings,  who  wrote  at 
the  commencement  of  the  captivity,  586  B.C.  During 
this  tumultuous  period  of  establishing  the  monarchy, 
but  little  reference  would  be  made,  in  brief  annals,  to 
rituals  and  customs.  Weightier  and  novel  matters 
would  press  upon  the  writer's  attention.  And  in  all 
these  writings  we  cannot  rely  upon  any  stronger  evi- 
dence of  the  age  of  the  Pentateuch  than  is  furnished 
by  the  opinion  of  the  age  in  which  they  were  written, 
as  expressed  by  their  authors.  It  is  true  that  they  did 
not  rely  wholly  upon  tradition.  They  had,  apparently, 
in  their  hands  scraps  of  records  and  songs  which  fur- 
nished some  written  testimony  to  the  customs  and  laws 
of  this  period,  and  to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  rit- 
ual. These  obscure  references  and  passing  hints  we 
shall  do  well  to  notice  and  weigh. 

In  I.  Samuel  i.,  3,  we  read  that  Hannah  and  her  hus- 
band, a  hundred  years  before  the  time  of  David,  "went 
up  yearly  to  worship  and  to  sacrifice  unto  the  Lord  of 
hosts,  in  Shiloh,"  where  the  tabernacle  was.  In  chap- 
ter i.,  21,  22,  the  writer  tells  us  that  the  journey  was 
repeated  the  next  year  by  the  father  alone,  and  that 
the  second  year  the  child  Samuel  was  with  them.  This 
"yearly"  journey  was  required  by  "The  Law"  at  the 
feast  of  the  passover,  but  we  do  not  read  of  it  again  in 
the  book,  showing  how  many  things  customary  are  not 


FROM    DAVID   TO   MOSES.  I37 

named.  We  read  of  the  offering  of  "  burnt-offerings  " 
and  "peace-offerings  "  at  different  times  and  at  differ- 
ent places,  since  no  spot  had  been  selected  as  the  per- 
manent resting-place  of  the  ark.  There  are,  also,  found 
some  phrases  in  the  Books  of  Samuel  which  the  his- 
torian evidently  took  from  the  Books  of  Moses  ;  but  as 
he  wrote  at  as  late  a  period  as  is  covered  by  some  of 
the  books  already  examined,  and  as  his  style  would 
only  prove  the  existence  of  the  Pentateuch  when  he 
wrote,  I  will  not  occupy  much  space  by  making  quota- 
tions. In  I.  Samuel,  chapter  xii.,  14,  Samuel  says  to 
the  people,  "  If  ye  will  not  rebel  against  the  command- 
ment of  the  Lord,"  it  will  be  well  with  you  ;  "but  if  ye 
rebel  against  the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  then  shall 
the  hand  of  the  Lord  be  against  you,  as  it  was  against 
your  fathers."  This  is  obviously  said  in  reference  to 
the  Law,  for  "  the  commandment,"  "  the  testimony," 
are  often  used  for  the  Pentateuch.  The  writer  of  the 
Book  of  Judges,  chapter  iii.,  4,  says,  "They  [the  na- 
tions not  conquered]  were  to  prove  Israel,  ...  to  know 
whether  they  would  hearken  unto  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord,  which  he  had  commafided  their  fathers  by 
the  hand  of  Moses. ^^  In  Joshua  i.,  7,  8,  the  Lord  is  rep- 
resented as  thus  addressing  Joshua  :  "  Be  thou  strong 
and  very  courageous,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do 
according  to  all  the  Law  which  Moses,  my  servant,  com- 
manded thee.  .  .  .  This  Book  of  the  Law  shall  not  depart 
out  of  thy  mouth,  .  .  .  that  thou  mayest  do  all  that  is 
written  therein."  In  chapter  viii.,  30,  31,  we  read  that 
"Joshua  built  an  altar,  ...  as  Moses  the  servant  of  the 
Lord  commanded  the  children  of  Israel,  as  it  is  written 
in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  MosesJ'     In  chapter  xxiii ,  6, 


138  A   STUDY  OF   THE   PENTATEUCH, 

we  read  of  what  "is  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Law 
of  Moses";  and  in  chapter  xxiv.,  26,  we  read  that 
"  Joshua  wrote  these  words  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of 
God." 

Such  are  the  names  given  in  these  early  annals  to 
the  book  or  code  by  which  the  people  were  governed. 
Let  us  now  see  if  the  references  to  it  or  the  customs  of 
the  period  render  it  certain  that  our  Pentateuch  is 
intended  by  these  names.  The  priests  are  represented 
in  Joshua  as  "  bearing  the  ark,"  and  the  "  ark  of  the 
covenant,"  and  the  "  ark  of  the  Lord,"  and  "  the  ark 
of  the  testimony  "  ;  and  "  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Aaron," 
is  said  to  have  "  stood  before  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
of  God  in  those  days,"  in  the  Book  of  Judges  ;  and  in  I. 
Samuel  it  is  spoken  of  ten  times,  and  in  IL  Samuel  five 
times.  In  Joshua  xviii.,  i,  "the  tabernacle  of  the  con- 
gregation" is  said  to  "be  set  up  at  Shiloh,"  and  it  is 
mentioned  again  xxii.,  19  ;  and  three  times  it  is  spoken 
of  in  Samuel.  The  "curtains  "  of  the  dwelling-place  of 
the  ark  are  mentioned  in  IL  Samuel  vii.,  2,  and  in  the 
sixth  verse  the  "  tent  and  tabernacle  "  are  spoken  of, 
describing  the  original  tabernacle  accurately,  the  "  tent " 
signifying  the  outward  covering  of  skins  and  cloth  of 
goat's  hair,  and  "  the  tabernacle  "  signifying  the  "  cur- 
tains of  fine  twined  linen  and  blue  and  purple  and 
scarlet,"  Exodus  xxvi.,  i,  14.  This  passage  shows  how 
carefully  the  material  and  form  of  the  ancient  taber- 
nacle had  been  preserved  through  all  ages  and  vicissi- 
tudes, amid  repairs  and  renewals  down  to  the  time  of 
David,  a  period  of  about  four  hundred  years,  when  we 
find  him  ambitious  to  erect  a  more  imposing  struct- 
ure for  the  administration  of  the  ritual.     We  read,  in 


FROM   DAVID   TO   MOSES.  139 

I.  Samuel  xxi.,  6,  of  the  "  shew  bread  "  which  was  in  the 
tabernacle  at  Nob,  chapter  xxii.,  11,  and  which  was 
"  hallowed  bread,"  of  which  David  and  his  men  were 
permitted  to  eat  after  much  deliberation,  as  it  was 
sacredly  set  apart  for  the  priests,  Leviticus  xxiv.,  9. 
In  I.  Samuel,  during  times  bordering  upon  those  of  the 
Judges,  we  read  frequently  of  "  offerings  "  and  "  sacri- 
fices," offered  apparently  at  places  where  the  "  taber- 
nacle "  was  from  time  to  time  located,  and  sometimes 
on  altars  built  for  the  occasion. 

These  records  of  religious  observances  are  quite  fre- 
quent, though  brief ;  but  they  are  hints  of  what  existed 
and  was  common,  as  the  "  yearly  sacrifice  "  to  which  the 
people  are  said  to  go  up  is  mentioned  specially  but  three 
times.  And  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  these  were 
turbulent  times,  and  the  writer  of  Judges  does  not 
dwell  upon  the  years  of  peace,  but  describes  almost 
exclusively  the  insurrections  and  forays  and  personal 
exploits  of  the  time.  We  read  of  **  priests  "  in  Joshua 
and  Judges  and  Samuel,  and  of  their  presence  at  the 
place  of  the  tabernacle.  There  is  no  evidence  which  is 
decisive  that  any  service  which  was  allotted  by  the  Law 
to  a  priest  was  performed  by  any  other  person.  In  the 
case  of  Samuel,  there  are  two  or  three  instances  in 
which  he  may  have  offered  sacrifice  ;  but  it  is  by  no 
means  clear  that  even  in  those  a  priest  was  not  in 
attendance,  though  not  spoken  of.  But,  granting  that 
Samuel  did  offer  sacrifices  two  or  three  times,  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  was  lawful,  but  rather  that  he  violated 
the  Law.  And,  further,  if  we  can  rely  upon  the  record, 
the  relation  of  Samuel  to  the  priesthood  was  unique  ; 
and  he  may  have  felt  authorized  to  act  as  a  priest  in 


140  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

certain  contingencies,  if  he  did  so.  In  either  view 
of  his  action,  it  does  not  furnish  even  a  presumption 
against  the  existence  of  the  ritual ;  much  less  does  it 
furnish  an  argument  against  its  existence. 

Did  I  not  fear  that  I  should  utterly  exhaust  the  pa- 
tience of  my  readers,  I  should  like  to  refer  to  some  yet 
more  obscure  indications  of  the  existence  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch contained  in  these  fragmentary  sketches  of  the 
earliest  anarchical  times,  and  yet  so  exact  as  to  com- 
mand attention.  I  must  satisfy  my  desire  to  give  a 
specimen  of  them  :  I.  Samuel  i.,  11,  "And  there  shall 
no  razor  come  upon  his  head  " ;  a  literal  statement  of 
the  Law  of  the  Nazarite,  Numbers  vi.,  5.  Chapter  i., 
24,  she  "took  three  bullocks  and  an  ephah  of  flour" 
for  her  offering  ;  just  the  right  proportion  of  flour  pre- 
scribed to  a  bullock.  Numbers  xxviii.,  12.  Chapter 
ii.,  2,  "  Neither  is  there  any  rock  like  our  God,"  is 
literally  taken  from  Deuteronomy  xxxii.,  30.  The 
departure  from  the  ritual  by  the  wicked  sons  of  Eli  is 
described  in  chapter  ii.,  13-15,  in  not  "  burning  the  fat  " 
and  the  "  sodden  meat "  which  were  prescribed  in  Le- 
viticus vi.,  28,  and  vii.,  31-35.  In  verses  18,  19,  the 
child  Samuel's  "  linen  ephod "  is  mentioned,  and  his 
"little  coat"  (robe),  which  was  the  priest's  garment 
worn  under  the  "  ephod,"  both  described  in  Exodus 
xxviii.,  6,  31.  In  chapter  iii.,  3,  we  read  of  the  "  lamp 
which  burnt "  in  the  place  "  where  the  ark  of  God  was," 
Exodus  xxvii.,  21.  In  chapter  iii.,  14,  we  read  of  the 
"sacrifice"  {zabacJi)  and  "offering"  {mincah)  required 
by  the  Law  in  many  places.  I  have  already  alluded  to 
the  frequency  with  which  the  "  ark  of  the  covenant  " 
is  mentioned.     Chapter  vi.,  6,  speaks  of  the  "  harden- 


FROM  DAVID  TO  MOSES.  I41 

ing  "  of  the  people's  hearts  as  the  heart  of  "  Pharaoh 
was  hardened,"  Exodus  xii.,  31.  In  chapter  vii.,  9,  we 
read  that  "Samuel  took  a  sucking  lamb,  and  offered  it 
for  a  burnt-offering  wholly  to  the  Lord,"  Leviticus  xxii., 
7.  Chapter  viii.,  3,  Samuel's  "  sons  took  bribes  and 
perverted  judgment,"  Exodus  xxiii.,  8.  Chapter  ix.,  24, 
"And  the  cook  took  up  [heaved  up]  the  shoulder,  and 
set  it  before  Saul,"  Exodus  xxix.,  27.  Chapter  x.,  25, 
"  Samuel  wrote  in  a  book  the  manner  of  the  kingdom," 
Deuteronomy  xvii.,  18,  19.  Chapter  xx.,  5,  6,  "  To-mor- 
row is  the  new  moon,"  said  David,  "  let  me  go  ...  to 
Bethlehem,  for  there  is  a  yearly  sacrifice  there  for  all 
the  family,"  Numbers  x.,  10;  xxviii.,  11.  Verse  26, 
"Saul  .  .  .  thought  something  had  befallen  him  [David], 
he  is  not  clean  ;  surely  he  is  not  clean,"  Leviticus  vii., 
20,  21.  Chapter  xxviii.,  3,  "  And  Saul  put  away  those 
that  had  familiar  spirits  and  wizards  out  of  the  land," 
Deuteronomy  xviii.,  11,  12.  Chapter  xxx.,  7,  8,  "And 
David  said  to  Abiathar,  the  priest,  bring  me  hither  the 
ephod  [in  which  were  the  Urim  and  Thummim].  .  .  . 
And  David  inquired  of  the  Lord,"  Numbers  xxvii.,  21. 
Frequently  the  "  Lord  "  is  said  to  be  "  inquired  of  "  in 
the  life  of  David.  In  II.  Samuel  vi.,  2-17,  we  read  of 
the  "  ark  of  the  Lord  and  the  cherubim,"  and  of  the 
death  of  Uzzah  for  touching  it.  Numbers  iv.,  15. 

In  Judges  i.,  20,  we  read  that  "they  gave  Hebron 
unto  Caleb,  as  Moses  said,"  Numbers  xiv.,  24;  Joshua 
xiv.,  9,  13.  In  chapter  ii.,  17,  20,  22,  the  people  are 
charged  with  going  "a  whoring  after  other  gods,  and 
turning  quickly  out  of  the  way  which  their  fathers 
walked  in,  .  .  .  transgressing  my  covenant,  which  their 
fathers  did   keep"  (chap,  iii.,  6);  and   the  children  of 


142  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

Israel  "took  their  [Canaanites']  daughters  to  be  their 
wives,  and  gave  their  daughters  to  their  sons,  and 
served  their  gods,"  and,  verse  4,  did  not  "hearken  unto 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  which  he  commanded 
the  fathers  by  tlie  hand  of  Moses."  Read  the  Law, 
Exodus  xxxiv.,  15,  16.  The  "ephod,"  in  which  were 
the  Urim  and  Thummim,  is  spoken  of  as  if  essential 
even  in  forbidden  forms  of  consultation,  viii.,  27; 
xvii.,  5 ;  xviii.,  14,  17,  18.  In  xiii.,  19,  we  read  that 
"  Manoah  took  a  kid  with  a  meat  [meal]  offering,  and 
offered  it  upon  a  rock  to  the  Lord."  This  kind  of 
offering  is  required.  Numbers  xv.,  24.  "Burnt-offer- 
ings" and  "peace-offerings"  are  mentioned  in  xiii.,  16; 
XX.,  26;  xxi.,  4.  "The  ark  of  the  covenant"  is  spoken 
of,  XX.,  27.  "The  house  of  God  in  Shiloh,"  that  is  the 
"tabernacle,"  is  spoken  of  in  xviii.,  31,  and  very  prob- 
ably also  in  xix.,  18;  xx.,  18,  26,  31;  and  xxi.,  2. 
Phinehas,  the  grandson  of  Aaron,  "  stands  before  the 
ark,"  XX.,  28.  "  A  man  plucked  off  his  shoe,  and  gave 
it  to  his  neighbor  to  confirm  "  a  bargain  respecting  mar- 
riage under  peculiar  circumstance,  as  reported  in  Ruth 
iv.,  8.  The  Law  is  found  in  Deuteronomy  xxv.,  9.  A 
reference  is  also  made  in  iv.,  12,  to  Genesis  xxxviii.,  29. 
But  I  must  refrain,  or  patience  will  be  utterly  ex- 
hausted. I  wished  to  quote  some  of  my  notes  on 
Joshua,  especially  those  including  passages  where  it  is 
said  that  something  was  done  "as  Moses  the  servant 
of  the  Lord  commanded,"  as,  in  chapter  xi.,  12, 
"Joshua  sm.ote  all  the  cities  of  those  kings  and  all  the 
kings  of  them  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  he 
utterly  destroyed  them,  as  Moses  the  servant  of  the 
Lord  commanded."     The  command  of  Moses  is  in 


FROM    DAVID   TO   MOSES.  1 43 

Numbers  xxxiii.,  52,  and  Deuteronomy  vii.,  2,  *'Thou 
shalt  smite  them  and  utterly  destroy  them ;  thou  shalt 
make  no  covenant  with  them,  nor  shew  mercy  unto 
them,"  I  leave  them  all,  and  close  here  the  direct 
historical  or  external  evidence  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
Pentateuch.  Fragmentary  and  obscure  as  many  of 
these  notices  and  references  are  in  these  early  books,  1 
submit  that  they  are  as  numerous  and  as  explicit  as  any 
reasonable  critic  would  expect  to  find.  I  confess  to  my 
own  surprise  at  finding  so  many.  Only  Hebraists  can 
estimate  the  loss  I  feel  in  not  being  able  to  make  these 
quotations  from  the  original  language,  that  their  force 
might  be  fully  estimated.* 

I  cannot  better  meet  the  objection  which  is  raised 
against  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  during  the 
time  of  the  Judges  and  Samuel,  founded  upon  the  infre- 
quent mention  of  it  and  of  its  observance,  than  by  refer- 

*Much  has  been  made  by  Kuenen,  Graf,  Prof.  Smith,  and  others,  of  the  use 
of  the  words,  "the  priests,  the  Levites,"  in  Deuteronomy  xvii.,  g,  18,  and  else- 
where, without  the  copulative  conjunction,  "and,"  as  if  it  proved  that  there 
was  no  distinct  portion  of  the  tribe  of  Levite  priests  before  the  captivity.  But 
the  same  formula  is  used  after  the  captivity  (Nehemiah  x  ,  29,  35  ;  xi.,  20;  I. 
Chronicles  ix.,  2;  II.  Chroricles  v.,  5;  xxiii.,  18;  xxx.,  27;  Isaiah  Ixvi.,  21; 
Jeremiah  xxxiii.,  18),  showing  that,  however  it  is  to  be  explained,  it  certainly 
does  not  mean  that  all  Levites  were  priests  or  could  be ;  but  undoubtedly  it 
meant  that  all  priests  were  Levites  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  as  the  history  testifies. 
There  are  only  twenty-four  places  in  the  Old  Testament  where  this  phrase  is 
ured,  and  these  may  well  be  explained  by  the  not  unusual  grammatical  asyn- 
detic construction,  where  "conjunctions  which  serve  to  connect  words  and 
phrases  are  omitted,"  as  in  Genesis  xxxi.,  "  yesterday  [and]  the  day  before"; 
Judges  xix.,  2,  "a  year  [and]  four  months";  Habakkuk  iii.,  11,  "sun  [and] 
moon";  Nahum  iii.,  i,"  it  is  full  of  lies  [and]  robbery  "  ;  Isaiah  Ixiii.,  11,  "  Moses 
[and]  his  people";  Proverbs  xxii.,  21,  "words  [and]  truth";  Zechariah  i.,  13, 
"  words  [and]  consolations  "  ;  Exodus  xxiv. ,  5,  "  offerings  [and]  peace-offerings." 
These  examples  must  suffice.  To  build  up  a  theory  of  the  Jewish  priesthood  on 
th's  phrase  used  but  twenty-four  times  in  opposition  to  the  clear  and  explicit  decla- 
rations of  both  the  law  in  the  Pentateuch  and  the  testimony  of  subsequent  history 
is  erecting  a  pyramid  on  its  apex. 


144  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

ring  to  the  early  history  of  the  colony  of  Plymouth. 
That  the  Pilgrims  had  the  Bible  and  ministers  and 
churches  and  regular  services  on  Sunday,  everybody 
knows.  William  Bradford,  for  many  years  governor  of 
the  colony,  wrote  a  history  of  it  down  to  1646,  or  for 
twenty-six  years  after  the  colony  landed  at  Plymouth, 
It  makes  an  octavo  volume  of  four  hundred  and  forty- 
four  pages.  I  have  looked  through  its  pages  to  see 
how  he  treats  the  subject  of  religion, —  its  ministry,  its 
church,  its  ordinances,  its  Bible.  I  may  have  over- 
looked some  instances  in  which  he  speaks  of  them,  but 
I  am  confident  they  can  be  but  few.  He  mentions 
"the  Lord's  day"  but  twice;  he  speaks  of  "ministers" 
but  fifteen  times ;  of  the  "  church  "  but  twenty  times ; 
of  "baptism"  but  once;  and  in  every  instance  very 
briefly.  Four  times  he  speaks  of  the  "Scriptures"; 
four  times  of  "the  word  of  God";  and  once  of  "the 
infallible  word  of  God," — evidently  meaning  in  all 
these  cases  the  Bible.  There  are  repeated  quotations 
from  the  Bible,  and  its  language  is  used  frequently;  and 
sometimes  the  book  and  the  chapter  and  verse  are  men- 
tioned from  which  the  quotation  is  taken.  And  the 
"gospel"  is  spoken  of  ten  times  as  if  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  meant  in  distinction  from  the  Old ;  and  once 
"the  pure  Testament  of  Christ"  is  named,  with  evident 
reference  to  the  New  Testament.  There  is  one  refer- 
ence to  "  neglecting  hearing  the  word  on  the  Lord's 
day."  The  choice  of  a  "pastor"  is  spoken  of  three  or 
four  times.  Two  instances  of  setting  apart  a  "  day  of 
humiliation  "  are  recorded.  "  Taxing  for  preaching  "  is 
once  spoken  of.  And  yet  tliis  history  is  written  in  a 
religious  spirit,  and  "God's  providence"  is  mentioned 


FROM   DAVID   TO   MOSES.  145 

on  almost  every  page.  Now,  the  very  brief  Book  of 
Judges  covers  a  period  ten  times  as  long  as  Bradford's 
history  does,  and  would  give  room  for  ten  times  less  ref- 
erence to  the  ritual  than  Bradford  makes  to  the  Pil- 
grims' ecclesiastical  affairs,  were  the  book  as  large  as 
Bradford's ;  but,  if  its  size  is  taken  into  the  account  also, 
there  would  be  eighty  times  less  chance  in  Judges  to 
treat  of  religious  rites  and  books  than  in  Bradford ;  and 
if  Bradford  does  not  speak  of  the  Bible  in  any  phrase- 
ology, under  any  name,  but  about  sixteen  times,  how 
many  times  could  we  expect  Judges  to  speak  of  the 
"Law  of  Moses,"  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  used 
as  freely  and  observed  as  scrupulously  during  that 
period  as  the  Bible  was  by  the  Pilgrims  ?  An  answer  to 
this  question  gives  the  weight  of  the  objection  named 
above,  and  it  is  found  to  be  of  no  value.  And,  in  farther 
confirmation  of  this  estimate  of  the  little  weight  to  be 
attached  to  this  objection,  another  cause  of  the  infre- 
quent reference  to  the  Law  and  its  ritual  is  found  in  Dr. 
Kuenen's  Religion  of  Israel.  He  says  (Vol.  IL,  p.  293), 
"A  temporary  abeyance  of  the  ritual  legislation  is  not 
inconceivable"  under  "kings  indisposed"  to  regard  it. 
Much  more,  then,  may  we  suppose  that  its  observance 
was  frequently  held  in  "abeyance"  during  the  stormy 
times  of  the  Judges,  and  the  convulsions  which  at- 
tended the  establishment  of  the  monarchy. 

If  "amidst  arms  laws  are  silent,"  we  should  not  ex- 
pect to  hear  anything  of  ritual  observances  during  the 
tumults  of  the  Judges. 

This  would  be  the  place  to  examine  the  evidence 
which  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  furnishes  of  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Book  of  the  Law,  the  ritual  code,  were 


146  A   STUDY   OF    THE   PENTATEUCH. 

it  not  that  the  references  to  it  are  so  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  internal  evidence,  the  second  division 
of  my  Study,  as  to  make  its  examination  at  that  time 
most  convenient  and  suitable.  It  must  suffice,  there- 
fore, to  say  here  and  now  that  the  existence  of  some 
such  book  or  code  is  clearly  implied,  if  not  necessi- 
tated, by  the  laws  quoted  and  amended,  and  the  cere- 
monies modified  and  the  demands  withdrawn.  These 
will  be  fully  examined  and  illustrated  in  due  time,  and 
are  of  such  a  nature  and  so  numerous  as  to  bind  all 
the  previous  historical  evidence  back  to  a  date  as  early 
as  the  death  of  Moses. 

We  have  now  traced  back  through  a  period  of  over 
a  thousand  years  notices  of  a  work  containing  the  laws 
which  governed  the  Jews.  We  find  that  the  various 
names  by  which  it  is  called,  beginning  with  the  New 
Testament,  in  all  the  works  which  have  come  down  to 
our  time,  are  repeated  in  an  unbroken  series  back  to 
the  time  of  Joshua.  "The  Law,"  "The  Law  of 
Moses,"  "The  Law  of  the  Lord,"  "The  Book  of  the 
Law,"  "The  Book  of  the  Law  by  the  hand  of  Moses," 
"The  Book  of  the  Law  of  the  Lord,"  "The  statutes 
and  commandments  of  the  Lord,"  are  used  as  names 
to  designate  the  Pentateuch  from  the  days  of  Paul  to 
the  days  of  Joshua.  And,  further  than  this,  we  have 
found  that  the  passages  which  are  quoted  by  all  this 
series  of  writers  from  the  book  referred  to  under  those 
names  are  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  are  often 
quoted  with  verbal  exactness,  even  when  the  language 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  peculiar.  And,  still  further,  we 
have  found   that  peculiar  words  and  phrases  are  used 


FROM   DAVID   TO   MOSES.  ^47 

frequently  in  all  these  writings,  which  are  most  obvi- 
ously taken  from  "The  Law,"  showing  that  it  was  a 
book  whose  contents  were  as  familiar  to  these  writers 
as  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  is  to  the  preach- 
ers of  our  day.  In  a  word,  we  have  found  all  the  evi- 
dence that  could  be  expected,  and  vastly  more  than  is 
found  for  the  antiquity  of  any  other  writing  of  an  age 
even  much  less  remote. 

The  whole  atmosphere  of  these  books  is  fragrant 
with  the  incense  which  rose  from  the  Law,  and  the 
whole  elaborate,  magnificent  ritual  of  the  nation  is 
found  imbedded  in  it.  Our  Pentateuch  did  exist  in 
their  day.  It  must  have  existed,  or  all  historical  evi- 
dence is  false  and  worthless. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  allude  to  an  objection  to  the 
early  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  which  was  raised  by  a 
former  class  of  critics,  and  pressed  with  great  vehe- 
mence. It  was  maintained  that  the  art  of  writing,  even 
if  known,  was  not  sufficiently  advanced  to  produce 
such  works  as  the  Pentateuch  as  early  as  the  time  of 
Moses.  Modern  discoveries,  however,  in  Egypt  and 
Chaldea  and  Babylonia  have  removed  all  doubt  that 
writing  was  common  in  all  these  countries  as  early  as 
the  age  of  Moses.  The  walls  of  the  tombs  and  tem- 
ples of  Egypt  are  adorned  with  representations  of 
scribes  engaged  in  writing ;  and  a  room  has  been 
opened  in  one  of  the  great  palaces  which  is  called  a 
"library,"  showing  that  works  were  collected  for  use. 
Cloth,  papyrus,  skins,  and  stones  were  used  for  engrav- 
ing and  writing.  Rituals  and  financial  documents  of 
almost  every  kind  are  found  among  the  relics  in  the 
tombs.     In  Chaldea  and  Babylonia,  also,  writings  are 


148  A  STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

found  on  tablets  of  hardened  clay,  showing  that  poems 
were  written  in  the  Ur  of  Abraham  before  he  was  born. 
The  Legends  of  Izdubar  are  about  half  as  long  as  the 
Iliad,  and  they  were  written  five  centuries  before  the 
birth  of  Moses.  And  from  that  remote  date,  2000 
B.C.,  down,  we  have  writings  of  every  kind, —  accounts, 
deeds,  biographies,  histories,  legends,  etc., —  demon- 
strating not  only  the  possibility,  but  the  probability 
that  the  great  law-giver  of  Israel  would  commit  his 
ritual  and  code  to  writing,  as  it  is  affirmed  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch that  he  did.  But  I  have  lingered  on  this  effete 
objection  longer  than  its  inherent  weight  justifies ;  yet 
as  an  illustration  of  the  baselessness  of  many  other 
objections,  and  of  the  confirmation  of  the  antiquity  of 
the  Pentateuch  found  in  the  abundance  of  books  and 
writings  of  various  kinds  of  a  far  earlier  date  even,  it 
seemed  necessary  to  say  as  much  as  this  respecting  it. 
It  may  be  expected  that  something  will  be  said  at 
this  point  respecting  the  marvellous  events  which  are 
recorded  in  the  historical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch. 
As  this  Study  is  not  exegetical,  but  historical,  such  an 
inquiry  does  not  fall  within  my  subject ;  at  least,  I  have 
no  occasion  to  treat  of  these  marvellous  events  any 
further  than  their  record  affects  the  question  of  the 
age  and  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  historical  book 
of  Genesis  closes  at  least  two  centuries  before  the  time 
of  the  Hebrew  law-giver,  and  is  evidently  composed  of 
such  traditions,  recorded  and  oral,  as  had  come  down 
to  his  time.  We  have  no  conclusive  proof  that  the 
wonderful  things  there  recorded  are  true,  or  that  they 
ever  transpired ;  and  the  contents  of  the  book  do  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  weigh  against  the  opinion  that 


FROM    DAVID  TO   MOSES.  1 49 

it  was  written  or  compiled  in  the  Mosaic  age.  Respect- 
ing the  history  in  Exodus  up  to  the  arrival  at  Sinai,  it 
is  probable,  all  the  circumstances  taken  into  considera- 
tion, that  it  was  not  written  till  many  years  after  the 
events  described  took  place,  and  may  not  have  been 
written  till  many  years  after  the  death  of  Moses, 
though  it  must  have  been  written  while  the  "  archaic 
language  "  was  in  use.*  The  nature  and  extent  of  the 
wonders  in  Egypt  may  have  been  exaggerated,  as  re- 
peated from  father  to  son ;  and  it  is  not  impossible  that 
a  literally  correct  account  is  not  given  of  the  evils 
which  befell  the  Egyptians  at  that  time,  and  the  exact 
circumstances  of  their  deliverance.  Very  probable  it 
is  so.  No  blame  can  attach  to  the  writer,  whoever  he 
was,  who  gathered  up  these  oral  reports  of  the  causes 
which  led  to  the  escape  of  his  nation  from  bondage, 
and  what  befell  the  people  in  their  flight.     An  interval 

•  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  remind  the  intelligent  reader  that  passages  have 
occasionally  found  their  way  into  the  text  which  were  at  first  only  marginal  notes 
and  explanations  of  names  and  places, —  which  has  happened  to  all  ancient  writ- 
ings, and  by  no  means  proves  the  composition  of  the  work  itself  to  have  been  at 
as  late  a  period  as  that  of  the  note.  A  few  specimens  of  these  later  notes  will 
be  given.  Genesis  xii.,  6,  "  And  the  Canaanite  was  then  in  the  land."  Genesis 
xiii.,  7,  "And  the  Canaanite  and  the  Perizzite  dwelt  in  the  land."  These  sen- 
tences were  added  after  the  conquest.  Genesis  xxiii.,  2,  "  In  Kirjath-arba ;  the 
same  is  Hebron."  The  last  words  were  written  after  the  conquest,  to  define  an 
ancient  city.  Another  passage  shows  that  the  interpolated  note  was  not  written 
till  after  the  monarchy  was  established  :  Genesis  xxxvi.,  31,  "  before  there  reigned 
any  king  over  the  land  of  Israel."  The  passage  respecting  the  cessation  of  the 
manna  (Exodus  xvi.,  35)  belongs  to  the  same  class.  Leviticus  xviii.,  28,  "  as  it 
spued  out  the  nations  before  you,"  is  evidently  a  note.  Deuteronomy  ii.,  12, 
contains  another.  .So  also  Exodus  vi.,  20,  and  xi.,  3,  unless,  as  is  more  probable, 
the  whole  account,  Exodus  i.-xix.,  25,  was  written  later.  "The  meekness  ot 
the  man  Moses,"  Numbers  xii.,  3,  is  clearly  a  marginal  note.  These  are  speci- 
mens of  the  explanatory  notes  which  have  found  their  way  into  the  text.  Their 
pnrcnthcticrd  character  most  cle.irly  shows  that  such  was  their  origin,  and  they 
raise  hardly  the  slightesi  antecedent  presumption  against  the  antiquity  of  the 
original  work. 


i50  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

of  forty  or  fifty  years,  perhaps  more,  after  the  death  of 
Moses,  a  full  century  or  more  after  they  transpired, 
would  be  sufficient  to  magnify,  in  their  narration, 
events  which,  in  any  point  of  view,  must  have  been 
startling  and  destructive.  Precisely  what  those  calami- 
ties were,  I  have  no  occasion  to  inquire.  That  they 
were  uncommon  and  very  serious,  is  evident.  It  mat- 
ters not,  as  far  as  this  argument  is  concerned,  whether 
they  were  miraculous  or  natural  in  the  usual  acceptance 
of  these  words. 

The  same  remarks  may  be  made  respecting  the 
description  of  the  giving  of  the  commandments  at 
Sinai.  They  may  have  been,  they  were,  written  at  the 
time ;  but  the  historian  may  not  have  known  the  pre- 
cise circumstances  under  which  they  were  given  when 
he  wrote  the  attached  history,  and  intervening  years 
and  the  descriptions  of  others  may  have  magnified  the 
wonderful  phenomena  of  mountain  scenery  as  it  had 
appeared  to  persons  born  and  reared  in  the  level  and 
fertile  valley  of  the  Nile.  I  enter  into  no  speculation 
on  this  subject,  but  only  say  that  such  an  origin  will 
account  fully  for  the  coloring  which  is  given  them. 
Were  these  wonderful  events  accurately  recorded,  and 
were  they  stupendous  miracles,  the  antiquity  of  the 
Pentateuch  would  not  be  in  the  least  affected  by  it,  for 
that  is  proved  in  an  entirely  independent  manner. 
Almighty  Pov/er  is  amply  equal  to  doing  what  is  here 
recorded ;  and,  if  any  one  chooses  that  interpretation 
of  these  remarkable  events,  the  way  is  open  without 
in  the  slightest  degree  shaking  the  conclusion,  other- 
wise reached,  of  the  age  and  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 

One  word  more,  though  not  closely  connected  with 


FROM   DAVID  TO   MOSES.  151 

the  subject.  The  Pentateuch,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the 
Bible,  is  written  from  a  religious  point  of  view,  and  every- 
thing which  takes  place  is  attributed  to  the  direct  act 
of  God.  So,  when  a  person  speaks  what  he  or  others 
think  is  the  will  of  God,  it  is  said  that  God  speaks, 
that  God  commands,  that  God  forbids.  The  same 
language  is  now  used  not  only  by  ignorant,  but  by 
intelligent,  religious  people.  Further  than  this.  Seller 
says,  in  his  Hermeneutics,  the  Bible  "sometimes  de- 
scribes events  by  representing  as  spoken  things  which 
had  only  happened,  without  the  express  words  having 
been  actually  employed," — as  the  thunder  is  said  to  be 
the  voice  of  God,  as  God  spake  to  Moses  in  the  burn- 
ing bush,  whatever  it  may  have  been, —  that  is,  taught 
him  by  it  as  a  sign.  So,  probably,  the  supposed  teach- 
ing of  remarkable  events  is  embodied  by  the  historian 
in  words  which  are  attributed  to  God.  But  it  is  time 
to  return  to  the  direct  discussion  of  my  subject,  which 
is  not  related  except  very  remotely  to  any  of  these 
questions,  any  more  than  the  age  and  authorship  of 
Gulliver's  Travels  and  Robinson  Crusoe  are  related  to, 
or  depend  upon,  the  authenticity,  the  truth  of,  the 
accounts  recorded  in  them.  The  contents  may  be 
incredible,  but  their  age  and  authorship  may  be  in- 
dubitable. Things  differing  so  widely  must  not  be 
confounded  with  each  other.* 

*  Great  stress  is  laid  upon  the  fact  by  many  writers,  and  by  Prof.  Smith  in 
particular,  that  "anointed  stones"  {Matstsebahs)  were  erected,  and  "carved  im- 
ages" set  up  by  kings  and  priests  until  the  captivity,  and  thus  proving  that  the 
law  against  idol-worship  was  not  in  existence.  But  it  is  evident  that  many  of 
these  "anointed  stones  "  and  "  carved  images"  were  not  made  for  worship,  and 
were  forbidden  by  the  law  only  when  worshipped.  Not  only  were  the  curtains 
of  the  tabernacle  "  wrought  with  cherubim  of  cunning  work  "  (Exodus  xxxvi.,  8), 
but  two  cherubim  were  made  of  pure  gold  to  stand  oa  either  end  of  the  mercy- 


152  A  STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 


SECTION  v.-       CONCLUSION  OF  THE  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE. 

Here  I  rest  the  historical  evidence  for  the  antiquity  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Were  there  no  internal  evidence  in 
support  of  the  external,  we  should  be  obliged,  by  the 
laws  of  historical  criticism,  to  accept  "  The  Book  of 
the  Law  of  Moses  "  as  originating  in  his  age.  That 
the  last  four  books,  or  portions  of  them,  indirectly 
profess  to  have  been  written  in  that  age,  is  not  dis- 
puted. The  validity  of  this  profession  is  sustained  by 
the  internal  as  well  as  by  the  external  evidence,  as  I 
shall  show.  But,  before  examining  it,  I  will  quote  some 
of  the  opinions  of  leading  liberal,  not  to  say  radical, 
critics  on  the  antiquity  of  portions,  at  least,  and  large 
ones,  of  the  books  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  that 
the  reader  may  see  the  extravagance  of  some  re- 
cently broached  hypotheses,  and  how  very  near  these 

seat  in  the  Most  Holy  place,  on  the  Most  Holy  ark  (xxxvii.,  10).  The  second 
commandment  did  not  forbid  making  "carved  images,"  but  it  forbid  making 
carved  work  or  any  images  _/<7r-  a/(7rjAz/*  (Exodus  xx.,  4,  5).  When  Solomon 
erected  his  Temple,  he  not  only  covered  the  walls  with  ' '  carvings  of  cherubim  and 
palm-trees  and  open  flowers,"  but  he  set  up  two  pillars  at  the  entrance  of  the 
Temple,  covered  all  over  with  carvings  of  vines  and  pomegranates,  and  made  a 
molten  sea  "  which  stood  upon  twelve  oxen,"  and  "  between  the  ledges  were 
lions,  oxen,  and  cherubim,"  showing  that  Solomon  did  not  interpret  the  law  as 
forbidding  making  images  for  ornament,  but  for  gods  (I.  Kings  vi  ).  If  any  one 
should  say  that  all  this  use  of  carved  ornaments,  and  images  of  beasts  and 
fruits  and  vines,  shows  either  the  absence  of  the  law  or  its  disregard,  let  him 
turn  to  Ezekiel,  and  he  will  find  that  his  ideal  temple  is  adorned  in  the  same 
manner,  as  far  as  he  gives  a  particular  description  of  it.  Not  only  were  cheru- 
bim and  palm-trees  carved  upon  the  walls  of  the  temple,  but  each  "  cherub  had 
two  faces, the  face  of  a  man  and  the  face  of  a  young  lion"  (Ezekiel  xli.).  So  the 
great  reformer  and  composer  of  the  law,  as  some  maintain,  did  not  hesitate  to 
use  "carved  images  "  to  ornament  his  ideal  temple,  while  in  his  law  —  for  it  is 
maintained  by  these  authors  that  Ezekiel  wrote  Leviticus  xxvi. — he  \i:iA  abso- 
lutely forbidden  all  images  for  any  use.  So  evident  is  it  that  the  second  com- 
mandment only  forbade  the  use  of  images  as  representing  Jehovah,  and  set  up 
for  worship. 


CONCLUSION   OF   THE   HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE.      153 

able  scholars  come  to  sustaining  the  result  of  my  own 
historical  inquiry. 

De  Wette  says  (§162,  b.),  "He  [Amos]  must  have 
had  the  Book  of  Genesis,  in  its  present  form,  about  790 
B.C."  "  Hosea  (785  B.C.)  affords  us  a  trace  of  its  ex- 
istence. He  must  have  known  the  Book  of  Numbers,  as 
well  as  the  original  documents  and  later  fragments  of 
Genesis."  "Isaiah  (759  B.C.)  evidently  refers  to  Gen- 
esis." And  "Micah  (725  B.C.)  refers  to  Numbers  and 
Genesis."  "  The  discovery  of  the  Book  of  the  Law  in 
the  Temple,  under  Josiah's  reign,  about  624  B.C.,  re- 
lated in  n.  Kings  xxii.,  is  the  first  certain  trace  of  the 
existence  of  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present  form''''  (§162, 
a.).  And  he  says  (§12,  b.),  "Our  present  four  books 
of  Moses  originated  in  the  time  of  Solomon,"  1000 
B.C.  De  Wette  decides  that  "the  Elohim  document 
was  written  in  the  time  of  Samuel  or  Saul "  (iioo  B.C.) 
(§  158),  and  the  "Jehovistic  document  before  the  refor- 
mation under  Hezekiah  took  place,"  726  B.C.  (§  159). 
But  this  whole  hypothesis  of  the  use  of  Elohistic  and 
Jehovistic  documents,  especially  after  the  Book  of  Gen- 
esis, is  shown  to  be  without  sufficient  reason,  and  all 

I  have  carefully  examined  all  the  cases  of  disregard  of  the  Levitical  law 
referred  to  by  Prof.  Smith,  which  are  recorded  as  taking  place  down  to  the  time 
of  David  and  a  little  after,  and  find  not  one  which  is  not  impliedly  in  violation  of 
the  law  or  excused  on  the  ground  of  the  unsettled  state  of  the  nation,  or 
growing  out  of  a  false  interpretation  of  the  law  itself.  The  worship  of  strange 
gods  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  and  under  his  patronage,  was  not  more  antagonistic 
to  the  Levitical  law  than  was  the  worship  of  images  under  the  patronage  of  the 
Pope  in  thi  tenth  centur>'.  The  universal  prevalence  of  taking  oaths  all  over 
Christendom,  and  the  numerous  grounds  of  divorce  in  all  Christian  lands,  would 
be  greater  evidence  of  the  non-existence  of  the  gospel  history  than  the  offering 
of  sacrifices  by  Samuel  and  Saul  and  Solomon  is  of  the  non-existence  of  the 
Levitical  law  which  permitted  the  priests  alone  to  offer  them, —  if  indeed  these 
men  and  others  did  offer  them,  for  often  what  one  does  by  another  as  his  agent 
one  is  said  to  do  himself,  as  Solomon  is  said  to  have  built  the  Temple,  though 
he  hewed  neither  stone  nor  timber. 


154  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

conclusions  drawn  from  it  are  therefore  unreliable. 
The  "archaic"  words  and  phrases  which  Ewald  and 
Gesenius  and  De  Wette  maintain  are  found  in  the 
Pentateuch  are  as  numerous  in  what  are  called  the 
"Jehovistic"  documents  as  in  the  Elohistic;  but  the 
former,  according  to  De  Wette,  was  written  about  three 
hundred  years  after  the  latter.  He  says,  "The  Penta- 
teuch was  completed  about  the  time  of  Josiah"  (§  12,  b.). 
Dr.  Davidson  (Vol.  I.,  p.  133)  says,  "The  present 
Pentateuch  had  been  completed  shortly  before  the 
reign  of  Josiah"  (641  B.C.),  "  in  the  reign  of  Manas- 
seh"  (690  B.C.?)  (p.  123).  "The  Book  of  the  Law  of 
Moses,  spoken  of  II.  Kings  xiv.,  6,  may  or  may  not 
have  been  the  whole  Pentateuch.  The  notice  in  ques- 
tion proceeds  from  the  compiler  of  the  Kings,  who 
wrote  after  the  present  Pentateuch  was  completed.  .  .  . 
In  this  passage,  we  understand  the  Book  of  the  Law 
to  be  coextejisive  with  the  Pentateuch''^  (p.  119).  "The 
same  meaning  may  be  assigned  to  the  same  phrase  in 
II.  Kings  xxii.,  8,  11,  and  II.  Chronicles  xxxiv.,  14,  15," 
where  Shaphan  is  said  to  have  found  "  The  Book  of  the 
Law  in  the  house  of  the  Lord."  And  Dr.  Davidson 
goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  must  have  the  same  sense 
in  II.  Chronicles  xvii.,  9,  where  it  is  said  Jehoshaphat 
(912  B.C.)  sent  out  men  to  teach  "  the  Book  of  the  Law 
of  the  Lord  through  all  the  cities  of  Judah."  This 
statement  is  made  on  the  authority,  as  the  writer  of 
Chronicles  says,  of  what  he  found  "  written  in  the  Book 
of  Jehu,  the  son  of  Hanani,"  whose  works  were  a  part 
of  '•  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Israel."  On  this  admis- 
sion it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  Dr.  Davidson  does  not 
also  admit  that  the  Pentateuch,  at  least,  may  have  been 


CONCLUSION   OF    THE    HISTORICAL    EVIDENCE.       155 

in  existence  at  this  time  "in  its  present  form."  He 
does  say  with  emphasis  that  "  it  is  impossible  to  assign 
it  to  so  late  a  date  "  as  the  time  of  Ezra  (p.  122).  He 
also  maintains  that  Moses  wrote  not  only  the  com- 
mandments, Exodus  XX.,  but  also  xxi.-xxiii.,  19;  xxv.- 
xxxi.  He  further  claims  that  Moses  was  the  writer  of 
Leviticus  i.-vii.,  xi.-xvii.,  "which  have  the  genuine 
I\Iosaic  stamp  "  very  perceptibly.  Numbers  i.  "  exhibits 
a  minuteness,  circumstantiality,  and  historical  verisimil- 
itude v.'hich  scarcely  allow  of  a  different  writer.  All  is 
natural  on  the  supposition  of  their  belongifig  to  the  time 
of  Moses.  Chapter  iv.  belongs  to  the  same  times ; 
X.,  i-S,  must  be  regarded  as  Mosaic ;  xix.  is  a  wilder- 
ness enactment.  These  are  not  the  only  parts  of 
the  three  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  written  by 
Moses.  The  tabernacle  was  made  in  the  wilderness, 
and  the  Levitical  legislation  was  Mosaic  in  its  origin 
and  essence"  (Vol.  I.,  pp.  109-113).  Here  are  about 
tJurty  chapters  attributed  to  the  pen  of  Moses  in  Exodus 
—  Numbers  by  as  radical  a  critic  as  Dr.  Davidson. 
Lengerke  places  the  Elohistic  document  in  the  time  of 
Solomon  and  the  Jehovistic  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah, 
Tuch  places  the  Elohistic  document  in  the  time  of 
Saul,  and  the  Jehovistic  in  the  time  of  Solomon. 
Stahelin  places  the  Elohistic  document  in  the  time 
of  the  Judges  and  the  Jehovistic  in  the  time  of 
Manasseh.  Ewald,  whose  theory  of  documents  was 
peculiar  and  accepted  by  few  or  none,  believed  they 
were  all  written  before  the  end  of  the  seventh  century 
B.C.,  and  assumed  nearly  their  present  form  {History 
of  Israel,  Vol.  T.,  p.  130).  Some  fragments,  he  thinks, 
were  pre-Mosaic;   one  large  one  as  old  as  the  begin- 


156  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

ning  of  Samuel's  jurisdiction ;  another  larger  portion 
of  the  Pentateuch,  which  he  calls  by  the  name  of  the 
"  Book  of  Origins,"  was  composed  in  the  reign  of  Sol- 
omon, but  all  were  written  three  hundred  years  before 
the  time  of  Ezra,  to  whose  authorship  the  Dutch  school 
refer  a  large  portion  of  them. 

It  will  be  observed  that  all  these  scholars  who  had 
no  theories  of  the  evolution  of  religious  ideas  to  support 
remit  the  origin  of  the  largest  portion  of  the  Pentateuch 
to  a  very  early  period,  and  all  of  it  to  times  before  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  640  B.C.,  or  two  hundred  years  before 
the  time  of  the  return  of  Ezra.  But  the  distinction 
which  these  scholars  make  between  the  Elohistic  and 
Jehovistic  portions  of  the  last  four  books  is  chimerical, 
as  will  be  made  evident.  The  "  archaic  "  style  is  as 
obvious  in  the  Jehovistic  as  in  the  Elohistic  portion ; 
and  to  date  the  one  in  the  time  of  the  Judges,  as 
Stahelin  does,  and  the  other  in  the  time  of  Manasseh, 
five  hundred  years  later,  is  a  leap  in  literary  criticism 
which  cannot  be  imitated  nor  vindicated,  and  proves 
conclusively  the  falseness  of  these  theories.  Were 
there,  therefore,  no  further  or  other  evidence  of  the  age 
and  probable  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  I  should  feel 
justified  in  claiming  that  its  antiquity  and  authorship 
were  as  fully  proved  as  could  be  reasonably  expected 
when  we  consider  the  scant  literature  of  these  early 
ages  and  nations.  But  more  and  more  conclusive  proof, 
if  possible,  is  waiting  for  admittance,  derived  from  the 
writings  themselves. 


PART  II. 

INTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 

To  APPRECIATE  fully  the  force  of  the  internal  evidence 
which  I  shall  present  respecting  the  age  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  external  evidence  raises  the  strongest 
probability,  if  it  does  not  prove,  that  it  was  written,  and 
the  kind  of  composition,  both  in  style  and  construction, 
which  under  those  circumstances  we  should  expect  to 
find. 

According  to  the  presumption  raised  by  the  external 
evidence  and  their  own  profession,  these  writings,  or 
a  large  part  of  them,  were  composed  during  a  period 
of  forty  years  in  which  the  Jewish  people  were  sojourn- 
ing in  the  region  lying  between  Egypt  and  Palestine 
or  Canaan.  They  had  just  escaped  —  a  portion  at  least 
of  them  —  as  slaves  from  long  and  bitter  servitude  in 
Egypt,  and  were  on  their  way  to  take  possession  of  the 
land  which  their  fathers  had  inhabited,  and  from  which 
they  had  emigrated  some  hundreds  of  years  before  into 
Egypt.  During  this  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  they 
received  laws  adapted  to  their  condition,  and  directing 
their  occupation  and  mode  of  life  and  worship  in  the 
country  of  which  they  were  to  take  possession.  Their 
situation  was  peculiar,  and  peculiar  regulations  would 
be  needed  for  both  their  civil  and  religious,  as  well  as 
social,  welfare.  Difficulties  would  arise  in  the  interpre- 
tation and  execution  of  a  new  code  of  laws  under  new 
circumstances.     Rebellions  would  take  place  when  any 


158  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

special  perils  awaited  the  people  or  any  disappointment 
overtook  them.  We  should  expect  in  a  book  composed 
under  such  circumstances  that  many  minute  incidents 
then  occurring  would  be  related,  many  laws  passed, 
growing  out  of  passing  events,  many  difficulties  re- 
corded in  the  execution  of  the  laws,  and  growing  out 
of  the  contradictory  character  of  some  parts  of  their 
theoretical  and  experimental  legislation.  We  should 
expect  that  the  record  of  these  years  would  be  frag- 
mentary, journal-like,  often  abrupt  in  its  statements, 
disconnected,  incoherent,  omitting  periods  in  which 
nothing  specially  worthy  of  record  transpired,  recording 
many  things  which  have  little  interest  to  us,  but  which 
were  of  great  importance  to  them.  Such  would  be  the 
character  of  the  book  if  written  under  such  circum- 
stances as  I  have  supposed,  and  which  are  affirmed  in 
the  book  itself  to  be  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was 
composed. 

Nor  these  marks  only  should  we  expect  to  find.  The 
book  would  have  passed  through  all  manner  of  perils 
during  the  turbulent  period  of  the  judges  and  the  es- 
tablishment of  the  monarchy,  when  it  had  no  secure 
place  for  preservation  and  would  undoubtedly  suffer 
in  the  disarrangement  of  its  parts,  the  loss  of  some  of 
them,  the  errors  of  any  attempts  at  copying  and  cor- 
recting, the  glosses  of  subsequent  scribes  to  render  old 
expressions  intelligible,  old  names  modern,  old  customs 
understood.  We  should  expect  to  find,  scattered  all 
through  it,  the  explanations,  additions,  queries,  of  more 
modern  writers,  such  as  the  compliment  to  the  "  meek- 
ness "  of  Moses,  the  song  at  the  old  well,  the  modern 
names  of  old  towns  and  old  professions. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    STYLE   AND   LANGUAGE.  1 59 

Let  US  now  examine  the  books,  and  see  whether 
the  construction  and  contents  of  the  Pentateuch  do 
not  indicate  pretty  clearly  such  an  origin ;  whether  it 
does  not  "breathe  the  desert  air";  whetlier  the  camp 
and  a  nomadic  state  do  not  give  form  and  coloring 
to  the  whole  work ;  and  whether  the  language  does  not 
contain  archaic  and  obsolete  words,  and  forms  of 
words,  and  use  words  in  a  peculiar  sense,  all  of  which 
indicate  a  period  much  earlier  than  that  in  which  the 
remaining  books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  composed, 
and  prove  past  successful  refutation  the  Mosaic  Age  of 
the  work. 


SECTION  I.       EVIDENCE  FROM  STYLE  AND  LANGUAGE. 

I  will  first  examine  the  proof  of  its  antiquity  to  be 
found  in  the  Style  and  Language  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Respecting  "the  archaisms  and  other  peculiarities  of 
the  language "  which  are  found  in  Pentateuch,  De 
Wette  says,  "  All  that  can  be  proved  [by  them]  is  that 
some  of  the  fragments  of  which  it  is  composed  are  earlier 
than  others^  "And  since  the  Book  of  Joshua,  notwith- 
standing its  affinity  with  Deuteronomy,  does  not  possess 
in  common  with  it  certain  archaisms,  we  must  admit 
that  a  certain  uniformity  of  language  was  observed  and 
established  by  the  author  or  compiler."  *  Let  the 
reader  mark  two  important  affirmations  :  (i)  There  are 
"archaisms  and  other  peculiarities  of  language"  in  the 
Pentateuch.  (2)  They  are  so  marked  as  to  distinguish 
even  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  from  the  Book  of 
Joshua,  in  which   they  are  not  found.     But,  says   De 

•§'57- 


l6o  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

Wette,  "  all  that  can  be  proved  by  these  archaisms  and 
peculiarities  of  language  is  that  some  of  the  fragments 
of  which  it  [the  Pentateuch]  is  composed  are  earlier 
than  others."  Now,  the  fact  respecting  these  "archa- 
isms and  peculiarities  "  is  that  they  are  found  in  both 
the  so-called  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  documents  as 
selected  by  De  Wette  himself.  They  are  not  limited 
to  any  of  these  theoretical  or  real  documents  or  frag- 
ments. They  pervade  the  whole  work.  They  make  as 
clear  a  distinction  between  the  Pentateuch  and  all  the 
following  books  of  the  Bible  as  the  contents  of  the 
rocks  do  between  the  Eocene  and  the  Miocene  periods ; 
and  it  is  lamentable  that  he  should  have  allowed  him- 
self, when  struggling  with  this  objection  to  his  theory 
of  the  late  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  derived  from  its 
"archaisms  and  peculiarities  of  language,"  to  entirely 
misrepresent  the  method  and  result  of  Jahn's  Study 
on  this  subject.  He  says,*  "Jahn,  without  examining 
and  sifting,  has  huddled  all  together,  .  .  .  especially 
[names  of]  things  which  do  not  occur  elsewhere, —  tech- 
nical terms,"  This  is  just  what  Jahn  did  not  do,  what 
he  especially  avoided.  He  omitted  all  such  words  as 
De  Wette  accuses  him,  in  this  quotation,  of  introduc- 
ing, as  our  subsequent  notice  of  Jahn's  method  will 
show.  In  §  34,  De  Wette  says,  "  The  oldest  writers,  the 
authors  of  the  Pentateuch,  .  .  .  write  in  the  purest  and 
most  beautiful  language.  .  .  .  During  the  exile  and 
after  it,  the  influence  of  the  Aramaean  language  be- 
comes visible,  as  well  as  other  peculiarities  in  the  usage 
of  the  language."  Gesenius  divides  Hebrew  literature 
into  two  periods,  that  before  and  during  and  that  after 

*§  '57)  Note  a. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    STYLE   AND    LANGUAGE.  l6l 

the  captivity.  The  "  Aramgean  tinges  "  all  the  second 
period.  "  The  Pentateuch  belongs  to  the  first  period, 
with  Joshua  and  Judges  and  Samuel  and  Kings."  And 
what  is  unaccountable  is  that,  after  saying  that  "  the 
language  and  usage  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  historical 
passages,  agree  perfectly  with  those  of  the  other  histori- 
cal books,"  he  immediately  continues:  "However,  the 
Pentateuch  has  some  peculiarities,"  which  he  concedes 
may  indicate  "  a  high  antiquity  of  these  books."  * 
Gesenius  obviously  means  by  this  that  they  are  the 
oldest  in  Hebrew  literature,  as  the  "  archaisms  "  prove, 
and  consequently  were  not  written  in  whole  or  in  part 
by  Ezra.  But  Gesenius  says  more  than  this  :  "  From 
the  circumstance  that  these  idioms  appear  also  in  the 
later  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  that  a  conforming  hand  has  been  busy  with 
them."  Mark  the  consequence  of  this  "probability." 
Deuteronomy  is  supposed  to  be  the  book  found  or 
forged  by  Hilkiah.  If  so,  as  these  critics  maintain, 
then  "the  archaisms  and  peculiarities  of  language," 
which  it  is  affirmed  distinguish  the  four  other  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  Genesis  —  Numbers,  had  already  gone 
out  of  use,  and  rendered  it  necessary  for  the  writer  of 
Deuteronomy  to  "  conform "  his  style  to  those  older 
books,  in  order  that  his  forgery  might  escape  detection. 
But  if  these  books.  Genesis  —  Numbers,  were  not  writ- 
ten, as  the  Dutch  school  maintain,  till  during  the  cap- 
tivity and  after  it,  why  was  it  necessary  that  the  writer 
of  Deuteronomy  should  feel  compelled  to  "  conform  " 
his  style  to  that  of  books  not  in  existence .''  Indeed,  to 
ordinary  minds,  it  does  not  seem  possible  that  he  could 

*  De  Wette,  Vol.  L,  Appendix  D,  §  8. 


l62  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

do  it  without  miraculous  foresight.  And,  more  wonder- 
ful still,  why  should  these  forgers  of  the  laws  during 
and  after  the  captivity  have  taken  so  much  pains  to  in- 
troduce these  "  archaisms  and  peculiarities  "  when  there 
was  no  old  literature  to  show  that  they  ever  existed,  no 
older  books  considered  sacred  ? 

In  order,  however,  to  justify  his  placing  Deuteronomy 
at  a  considerably  later  period  than  Genesis  —  Numbers, 
Gesenius  says  :  "  A  remarkably  different  style  prevails  in 
Deuteronomy  [from  that  in  the  earlier  books].  Its  most 
remarkable  characteristic  consists  in  a  certain  diffuse, 
rhetorical,  and  moralizing  tone,  and  the  constant  re- 
turn of  favorite  phrases."  That  is  to  say,  *'  its  most 
remarkable  characteristic  "  is  precisely  that  which  dis- 
tinguishes an  oration  from  a  statute,  an  address  from 
an  enactment.  Deuteronomy  is  an  oration,  an  address. 
Exodus — Numbers  are  made  up  of  "orders"  and 
"  laws."  They  demand  a  different  style  from  an  ad- 
dress, and  they  have  it.  Yet  the  fragments  of  addresses 
which  are  scattered  through  these  earlier  books  are  as 
"  diffuse,  rhetorical,  and  moralizing  in  tone "  as  Deu- 
teronomy. There  is  nothing  in  the  style  of  Deuter- 
onomy to  separate  it  in  age  from  the  other  books.  The 
different  styles  demanded  by  moral  precepts  and  stat- 
ute laws  and  specifications  for  work  and  an  address 
fully  explain  and  justify  the  difference  between  the 
style  of  Exodus  —  Numbers  and  that  of  Deuteronomy. 

Then,  again,  the  mood  of  mind  in  which  a  person 
writes,  and  whether  he  dictates  or  holds  the  pen,  has 
his  extemporaneous  address  taken  down  by  another  or 
writes  it  out  afterwards  himself,  make  a  difference  in  the 
same  person's  style  which  few  critics  appreciate.     As  I 


EVIDENCE    FROM    STYLE   AND   LANGUAGE.  163 

write,  a  notable  instance  of  it  comes  to  mind.  It  is  in 
Mr.  Whipple's  Memoir  of  Thomas  Starr  Kifig*  In  an 
interview  with  Mr.  King,  Mr.  Whipple  says  :  "  I  main- 
tained that  he  lost  in  compactness  many  of  the  advan- 
tages he  gained  in  compass, —  that  his  pen  when  placed 
in  his  own  fingers  not  only  hit  on  the  best  word  or 
phrase  to  express  his  thought,  but  really  deepened  the 
thought  by  the  pauses  which  composition  exacts.  The 
dispute  culminated  late  one  Sunday  evening  after  he 
had  delivered  a  carefully  premeditated  lecture  on  Hllde- 
brand.  I  recklessly  offered  to  distinguish  among  the 
promiscuous  passages  which  were  fresh  in  my  memory 
those  which  he  had  himself  written  from  those  he  had 
dictated  to  his  amanuensis.  Manuscript  in  hand,  he 
laughingly  defied  me  to  undertake  the  task.  By  good 
luck,  I  happened  to  be  right  in  every  guess^  Two 
thousand  years  hence  or  less,  some  critic  of  this  disin- 
tegrating school  will  be  proving  to  admiring  students 
of  "  advanced  thought "  that  this  lecture  on  Hlldebrand 
is  a  composite  work  patched  up  by  a  later  hand  from 
different  authors  ! 

As  this  matter  of  style  has  an  Important,  not  to  say  a 
decisive,  bearing  on  the  age  of  the  Pentateuch,  I  make 
one  more  reference  to  the  opinion  of  Gesenlus.  He 
says,  in  his  Hebrew  Grammar^  Introduction,  3  :  "  The 
Pentateuch  undoubtedly  has  some  peculiarities  of 
language  which  may  pass  for  archaisms,^''  and  then 
proceeds  to  name  a  few  which  distinguish  it  from  all 
other  literature  before  the  captivity  :  "  Jeremiah  and 
Ezeklel  are  examples  of  a  decided  approach  to  the 
Aramaean  hue  of  the  silver  age,"  or  to  the  books  written 

•Page  58. 


164  A   STUDY   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

during  the  later  period  of  the  captivity  and  after  the 
return,  "  in  all  of  which  a  Chaldee  [Aramaean]  coloring, 
although  in  different  degrees,  is  exhibited."  He  says 
further,  as  quoted  in  Parker's  De  Wette*  "  As  the 
language  appears  at  present  in  the  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  we  can  distinguish  in  them  only  two  periods 
distinctly  marked  by  their  character, —  those  writings 
before  the  exile  and  those  during  the  exile  and  after  it.^^ 
On  page  443,  he  says :  "  With  the  exile  begins  a  nexv 
epoch  for  language  and  literature,  which  is  particularly 
distinguished  by  an  approach  to  the  cognate  East-Ara- 
mcean  dialect  to  which  the  Jews  in  the  land  of  exile 
became  accustomed."  And  he  further  says,  page  450  : 
"  Ezekiel  stands  on  the  borders  of  the  two  periods.  .  .  . 
He  shares  many  peculiar  terms  and  Chaldaic  expres- 
sions with  his  contemporary,  Jeremiah.  But  they  are 
more  numerous  in  Ezekiel ;  and,  among  all  writers  of 
the  Old  Testament,  perhaps  he  has  proportionably  the 
greatest  number  of  grammatical  anomalies  and  inac- 
curacies." "  Ecclesiastes  is  tinged  most  deeply  with 
Aramaean  dye."  This  would  seem  to  be  conclusive 
respecting  the  composition  of  any  part  of  the  Penta- 
teuch in  this  period  or  near  it,  and  yet  we  are  gravely 
told  by  Dr.  Kuenen  that  Leviticus  xviii.-xxvi.  was 
written  by  this  eminently  Chaldeeizing  Ezekiel. 

Dr.  Davidson  says  :  "  There  are  some  peculiarities 
in  the  Pentateuch  .  .  .  which  were  afterwards  modified  or 
dropped.  There  are  diversities  between  the  language 
as  found  in  it,  and  the  language  some  centuries  after, 
which  can  be  recognized."  "  The  Aramasan  [Chaldee] 
element  is  a  characteristic  feature  which  distinguishes 

*  Vol.  I.,  Appendix  D,  p.  440. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    STYLE    AND    LANGUAGE.  1 65 

the  language  of  this  [later]  period."  "  This  deteriora- 
tion is  observable  even  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  who, 
in  point  of  language,  stand  on  the  borders  of  the  two 
ages,"  that  before  and  that  after  the  captivity.  "  It  is 
still  more  noticeable  in  the  post-exile  prophets."  *  And 
yet  a  school  of  critics  contend  that  a  portion  of  the 
Pentateuch  was  written  by  Ezekiel,  and,  more  incredible 
still,  that  large  parts  of  it  were  written  by  Ezra.  Nine 
years  later,  when  Davidson  was  goaded  into  becoming 
a  partisan  rather  than  a  critic,  he  endeavors  to  parry 
the  force  of  the  argument  derived  from  "  archaisms  "  in 
favor  of  the  Mosaic  age  of  the  Pentateuch  by  exposing 
the  extravagant  claims  of  some  of  their  advocates ;  but 
he  says,  "We  do  not  say  that  there  are  no  diversities 
of  language  between  the  Pentateuch  and  later  books." 
The  fact  then  remains  that  there  is  an  observable  diJJ'er- 
ence  in  the  style  of  the  Pentateuch  from  that  of  the  later 
books,  and  mdicating  an  earlier  age.  And  this  is  all 
that  is  claimed.  The  more  or  less  diversity  is  of  no 
vital  importance. 

Ewald,  the  great  Hebraist,  whose  fanciful  theory  of 
five  or  six  writers  of  different  portions  of  the  Pentateuch 
has  not  been  accepted  by  critics,  says,  "  These  frag- 
ments," referring  to  the  earliest,  according  to  his  classi- 
fication, "  display  many  both  rare  and  archaic  peculiarities 
in  the  usage  of  words  "  ;  and  he  gives  several  in  a  note, 
and  remarks,  "  We  find  here,  in  proportion  to  the  trifling 
bulk  of  the  passages,  a  great  fiumber  of  words  which  are 
either  wholly  unknown  elsewhere,  or  are  not  usual  in 
prose."  t     But  the  same  holds  true  of  all  the  portions 

*  Bi6.  Crit.,  VoL  L,  pp.  15,18. 
\His.  0/ Is.,  Wo\.  L,  p.  65. 


l66  A    STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH, 

or  sections  made  by  Ewald ;  and  these  peculiarities  all 
disappear  in  the  books  following  the  Pentateuch,  prov- 
ing that  a  period  of  considerable  length  must  have  in- 
tervened between  the  close  of  its  composition  and  that 
of  those  books.  I  cannot  understand  how  Hebrew 
scholars  can  believe  that  the  Pentateuch,  so  marked  by 
its  *'  archaisms,"  could  have  been  written  after  Joshua 

—  Kings  (a  large  part  of  it  even  by  Ezra),  which  are  free 
from  them  ;  and  these  books  were  most  certainly  written 
before  the  middle  of  the  captivity,  most  of  them  before 
its  commencement,  and  some  of  them  as  early  as  or 
earlier  than  the  time  of  David. 

The  emphasis  with  which  Ewald  characterizes  the  dif- 
ference in  the  style  of  the  Pentateuch  and  that  of  the 
rest  of  the  books  written  before  the  captivity  (Joshua 

—  Kings)  demands  notice.  "The  first  phenomenon," 
he  says,  "  that  strikes  the  observer  here  is  the  marked 
difference  in  the  language  [of  these  later  books]  in  com- 
parison with  that  of  the  preceding  great  book  of  the 
primitive  history  [the  Pentateuch].  Although  both  are 
equally  made  up  of  passages  by  the  most  diverse  writ- 
ers, yet  on  the  whole  each  is  distinguished  by  ■x  peculiar 
cast  of  language.  Many  fresh  words  and  expressions 
become  favorites  here  [in  Joshua  —  Kings]  and  sup- 
plant their  equivalents  in  the  primitive  history  [Genesis 

—  Deuteronomy] ;  others  that  are  thoroughly  in  vogue 
here  [in  Joshua  —  Kings]  are  .  .  .  avoided  in  the  primi- 
tive history.  But  the  most  remarkable  and  pervading 
characteristic  is  that  words  of  common  life,  which  never 
occur  to  the  pen  of  any  single  relater  of  the  primitive 
history,  find  an  unquestioned  reception  here  [in  Joshua  — 
Kings]."      "  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,"  he  yet 


EVIDENCE    FROM    STYLE   AND   LANGUAGE.  167 

more  emphatically  affirms,  "  that  the  established  usage  of 
centuries  must  have  sanctioned  for  the  primitive  history 
[the  Pentateuch]  a  style  of  narrative  and  a  cast  of  lan- 
guage utterly  different  from  those  customary  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Kings,"  in  which  Ewald  includes  Judges  — 
Kings.  They  "  naturally  created  a  new  style  of  narra- 
tive and  of  language."  *  The  italics  are  mine.  Ewald 
here  affirms  that  for  "centuries  "  the  "  primitive  style  " 
of  the  Pentateuch  existed  before  the  writers  of  the  later 
books  and  literature  lived.  But  we  have  good  reason 
to  believe  that  we  have  remains  of  literature  as  early 
as  the  time  of  David  in  some  of  the  Psalms,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  probability  that  the  Book  of  Judges  and 
portions  of  Samuel  and  all  of  Joshua  may  have  been 
written  in  his  reign  or  shortly  after,  in  none  of  which 
are  there  any  of  the  "  archaisms  and  peculiarities  of  lan- 
guage "  which  are  "  utterly  different  from  those  custom- 
ary "  in  Joshua  —  Kings,  and  constituting  a  "  new  style 
of  narrative  and  language."  But,  according  to  the  esti- 
mate of  many  modern  critics,  only  about  three  centuries 
intervened  between  Moses  and  David  or  Solomon,  and 
only  about  five,  according  to  the  earlier  critics.  Ewald's 
"usage  of  centuries"  reaches  back  easily  to  the  time 
of  Moses  in  either  chronology.  To  make  as  great  a 
change  in  the  language  as  he  affirms,  that  length  of 
time,  in  that  age,  would  be  required.  The  age  of  the 
Pentateuch  is  thrown  back,  therefore,  to  the  time  of 
Moses  by  the  demand  of  its  ^'■utterly  differenf^  style  from 
that  of  the  later  books.  For  this  "  archaic  style  tinges" 
all  the  different  documents  of  which  some  critics  think  the 
work  is  composed,  as  Ewald  admits  "even  Deuteronomy 
tobe."t 

*  Vol.  I.,  pp.  134,  135.         tPage  135. 


1 68  A    STUDY    OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

These  opinions  of  eminent  Hebrew  scholars,  with 
which  nine-tenths  of  the  scholars  in  this  country  who 
can  read  Hebrew  agree,  must  suffice  as  proof  of  the 
"archaic  style"  of  the  Pentateuch.  A  popular  essay 
like  this  is  not  the  place  for  a  minute  exhibition  and 
criticism  of  these  "  archaisms  and  peculiarities  of  lan- 
guage." A  few  specimens  only  will  be  given,  as  indi- 
cations of  their  character,  and  illustrations  of  their 
number  and  variety,  in  which  the  common  reader  may 
be  interested. 

The  most  striking  and  obvious  peculiarity  in  the  style 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  the  use  of  the  same  word  for  the 
singular  pronoun  in  the  third  person  of  both  genders, 
he  and  she.  In  the  rest  of  the  Hebrew  writings,  a  dis- 
tinction is  always  made  and  a  different  word  is  used  for 
the  feminine  pronoun  she.  Ewald  himself  admits  that 
"  this  is  a  proof  which  cannot  be  mistaken,  in  favor  of 
the  high  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch."  And  when  we 
remember  that  this  pronoun  is  used  nearly  two  hundred 
times  in  the  Pentateuch,  and,  with  but  eleven  excep- 
tions, in  the  same  form,  the  "  proof  "  becomes  decisive 
that  the  book  is  older  than  any  other  Hebrew  writings 
which  have  come  down  to  us  ;  hence  older  even  than 
the  Psalms  of  David,  in  which  no  such  "  archaic  "  word 
is  found.  The  same  remark  may  be  made  respecting 
a  word  which  in  the  Pentateuch  is  used  twenty-five  times, 
and  is  applied  indifferently  to  either  a  young  man  or  a 
young  woman ;  while  in  the  other  Hebrew  writings  the 
feminine  termination  is  added  to  distinguish  the  gender. 
A  peculiar  form  of  the  plural  demonstrative  pronoun 
"  these  "  is  found  in  the  Pentateuch.  One  phrase  which 
indicates  strongly  the  very  early  origin  of  the  book  is 


EVIDENCE    FROM   STYLE   AND   LANGUAGE.  1 69 

that  used  to  denote  the  death  of  an  Israelite.  He  is 
said  "  to  be  gathered  to  his  people'' ;  while  in  the  later 
writings  he  is  said  "  to  be  gathered  to  his  fathers."  The 
nation  not  yet  being  settled  in  the  land  of  promise,  the 
"fathers  "  are  not  spoken  of.  A  peculiar  word  is  used 
in  the  Pentateuch  to  denote  species,  kind,  of  animals 
and  plants  twenty-eight  times,  and  is  never  used  in  later 
writings,  with  but  one  exception,  when  Ezekiel  (xlvii.,  10) 
most  obviously  quotes  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch, 
Genesis  i.,  21.  A  peculiar  phrase  is  used  twenty-one 
times  to  signify  the  relation  of  the  sexes.  Fourteen 
times  a  peculiar  word  is  used  for  la7nb.  A  peculiar 
word  for  laugh  is  used  thirteen  times,  or  rather  a  pecu  • 
liar  spelling  of  a  word.  A  peculiar  word  is  used  fifty 
times  for  goat  which  is  never  used  for  that  animal  in  the 
other  books.  A  word  is  used  for  female  twenty-one 
times  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  never  in  the  other  writings 
except  by  Jeremiah  (xxxi.,  22),  with  evident  reference 
to  the  old  usage.  Nephesh  is  used  eighteen  times  for 
"creature"  and  but  once  elsewhere,  Ezekiel  xlvii.,  9. 
Such  is  a  specimen  of  the  "archaic"  words  and 
phrases  used  in  this  book.  Dr.  Jahn,  who  made  a 
special  examination  of  these  "  archaisms,"  after  omit- 
ting all  words  which  treat  of  subjects  peculiar  to  the 
Pentateuch,  such  as  names  of  towns,  villages,  nations, 
men ;  of  diseases  and  symptoms  of  diseases ;  of  blem- 
ishes in  sacrifices,  priests,  men,  and  women;  of  parts 
of  the  tabernacle,  and  its  altars,  curtains,  and  furni- 
ture,—  in  short,  after  the  omission  of  all  words  which 
were  used  to  signify  things  or  ideas  not  spoken  of  in 
the  later  books, —  found  over  two  hundred  words,  used 
from  two  to  two  hundred  times  each,  which  are  peculiar 


170  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

to  the  Pentateuch*  When  we  consider  the  meagre 
vocabulary  of  Hebrew  words,  this  number  is  a  very 
large  one,  and  is  conclusive  evidence  that  the  book 
was  composed  in  a  period  remote  from  that  in  which 
the  other  Hebrew  books  were  written.  "  The  few  sol- 
itary Chaldaisms  which  occur  in  the  writings  of  the 
Golden  Age,"  and  which  have  been  adduced  as  proof 
of  the  modern  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  Gesenius  says, 
"  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  these  books 
passed  through  the  hands  of  copyists  whose  language 
was  Chaldee."  Besides,  it  is  not  certain  that  all  these 
so-called  Chaldaisms  are  such.  "  Some  of  them  are 
not  found,"  says  Gesenius,  "  in  Chaldee,  and  seem  to 
have  belonged  to  the  Hebrew  popular  dialect."  t 

Looking  at  the  language  only,  therefore,  we  are  re- 
quired to  refer  the  Pentateuch  to  an  age  as  remote 
as  that  of  Moses.  It  is  objected,  however,  to  this 
view  of  the  age  of  the  Pentateuch,  that  the  language 
must    have  undergone   a  greater  change   between  the 

•Yet  in  the  face  of  all  this  conscientious  and  scholarly  discrimination,  De 
Wette  is  rash  enough  and  unjust  enough  to  say  that  Jahn  was  utterly  heedless 
and  undiscriminating  in  his  selection  of  words. 

t  The  latest  statement  which  I  have  seen  respecting  the  language  of  the  Pen- 
t:;teuch  is  contained  in  a  notice  of  a  H istorico-Criiical  Commentary  on  the 
Lan^age  0/  the  Elohist  in  the  Petttateuch  (by  C.  Victor  Ryssel:  8vo,  pp. 
92;  Leipzig,  Fernan,  1878),  in  which  it  is  said  that  "the  result  of  the  au- 
thor's laborious  examinations  is  that  07ily  some  parts  of  the  Books  of  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  Numbers,  contain  peculiarities  of  language  which  point  to  a  rathfr 
late  date  of  composition.  These  are  the  parts  which,  taken  together,  form  the 
so-called  Priest's  Code.  But  the  greater  parts  of  the  Elohistic  book,  and  the 
w  ightiest,  i.e.,  the  historic  and  the  supreme  laws,  are  to  be  referred  to  the  early 
days  of  the  literature  of  the  Israelite  people."  Of  the  ability  of  this  scholar  to 
decide  on  this  subject,  I  have  no  knowledge.  Accepting  his  decision  as  correct 
respecting  the  fact  of  "certain  peculiarities  of  language"  in  the  ritual  which 
"  point  to  a  rather  late  date  of  composition,"  this  would  be  expected;  for  ritual 
language  survives  all  other,  and  would  be  Jised,  when  ritualistic  matters  were 
treated  of,  long  centuries  after  the  ritual  was  composed  and  adopted. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    STYLE   AND   LANGUAGE.  171 

Mosaic  Age,  in  which  it  is  claimed  that  the  Penta- 
teuch was  written,  and  the  age  in  which  the  remaining 
books,  Joshua  —  Kings,  were  written,  than  we  find  that 
it  has  undergone  in  these  books.  If,  however,  Joshua 
and  Judges  and  a  portion  of  Samuel  were  written  in 
the  age  of  David  or  Solomon,  as  is  most  probable,  only 
about  three  hundred  years  intervened  between  their 
composition  and  that  of  the  Pentateuch,  according  to 
the  most  commonly  received  chronology ;  and,  setting 
their  composition  as  late  as  that  of  the  Books  of  the 
Kings,  but  about  seven  hundred  years  separate  them. 
Now,  it  is  well  known  that  the  early  Oriental  languages 
do  not  change  as  rapidly  as  those  in  modern  days. 
The  late  George  H.  Smith,  the  eminent  Assyriologist, 
says :  *  "  The  texts  of  Rim-agu,  Sargon,  Hammurali,  who 
were  one  thousand  years  before  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
Nabonidus,  show  the  same  language  as  the  texts  of  these 
later  kings,  there  being  no  sensible  difference  in  style  to 
match  the  long  interval  between  them."  These  older 
texts  were  of  the  age  of  Moses,  according  to  the  old 
chronology,  and  just  as  much  time  elapsed  between 
their  composition  and  the  later  texts  as  elapsed  be 
tween  the  time  of  Moses  and  the  captivity,  when  the 
Books  of  the  Kings  were  written ;  but,  according  to 
the  new  chronology,  the  text  of  Rim-agu  is  three  hun- 
dred years  older  than  that  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  Egyptologists  also  testify  to  the  slight  changes 
which  took  place  in  the  early  centuries  in  the  language 
of  Egypt.  In  the  Revue  Archeologique  (1867,  unless  my 
reference  is  incorrect)  is  the  following  statement :  "  In 
comparing  the  demotic  papyrus  with  the  romance   of 

•Vol.  IL.p.  23. 


172  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

the  Two  Brothers,  even  a  superficial  examination  shows, 
not  only  that  the  language  and  the  formulas  of  the  two 
papyri,  separated  from  each  other  by  an  interval  of 
some  thousand  years,  are  of  the  same  kind,  but  also  — 
a  point  of  most  special  interest  —  even  the  grammar  has 
not  undergone  the  least  change."  Well  might  there 
not  have  been  any  greater  change  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage of  the  time  of  Moses  down  to  the  time  of  the 
captivity  than  we  find  when  we  compare  the  language 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  that  of  the  Books  of  the  Kings, 
There  is  a  change,  and  as  great  as  we  should  expect  to 
find  under  the  circumstances,  as  great  as  the  analogy  of 
other  Oriental  languages  would  lead  us  to  anticipate. 

The  language  of  the  Pentateuch  is  "  archaic  "  ;  sig- 
nally different  from  the  earliest  of  the  other  writings, 
and  some  of  these  date  back  to  the  time  of  David. 
The  time  between  Moses  and  David  was  none  too  great 
to  have  wrought  this  difference.  Governed  by  the  lan- 
guage of  the  work,  we  must  date  the  Pentateuch  as 
early  as  the  Mosaic  Age. 

Nor  can  it  be  said  with  any  ground  of  reason  that 
this  "  archaic  language  "  in  the  Pentateuch  is  only  the 
"  priestly  idiom  "  which  was  used  by  the  priestly  forgers, 
Hilkiah  and  Ezra ;  for  there  is  no  proof  that  there  was 
any  "  priestly  idiom."  And,  more  than  this,  the  writ- 
ings of  the  priests  which  have  come  down  to  us  contain 
none  of  these  "  archaic  peculiarities."  Jeremiah,  Eze- 
kiel,  Ezra,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  all  priests,  write  in  the 
degenerate  language  of  the  age  of  the  captivity,  and 
use  none  of  the  "  archaic  "  words  which  distinguish  the 
language  of  the  Pentateuch  from  all  the  other  books. 
This  they  would  not  have  done,  had  these  peculiar 
words  been  the  special  vocabulary  of  priestly  men. 


EVIDENCE   FROM   STYLE   AND   LANGUAGE.  1 73 

Before  dismissing  a  consideration  of  the  language  of 
the  Pentateuch,  as  furnishing  an  argument  for  its  an- 
tiquity, it  is  necessary  to  consider  an  objection  to  this 
conclusion  which  has  been  drawn  from  the  marked 
diversity  of  style  in  the  books  themselves.  A  sufiBcient 
reply  to  this  objection,  so  far  as  my  argument  is  con- 
cerned, is  that,  however  diverse  the  style  of  the  differ- 
ent parts  of  these  books  may  be,  the  style  of  all  these 
parts  is  "  archaic,"  and  hence  they  were  written  long 
before  Joshua  —  Kings.  But  I  cannot  admit  that  such 
diversities  of  style  as  the  objection  implies  are  found  in 
the  Pentateuch.  Excepting  the  first  eleven  chapters  of 
Genesis,  which  contain  some  notices  of  the  world  before 
the  time  of  Abraham,  and  excepting  several  passages 
in  the  remainder  of  Genesis,  there  is  a  unity  of  style  as 
clearly  marked  as  in  any  writing  by  even  one  person, 
spread  over  as  long  a  period  (forty  years)  and  includ- 
ing as  many  different  subjects,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
probability  of  the  employment  of  scribes  who  would 
naturally  write  in  different  styles  while  using  the  same 
"  archaic  language."  I  have  gone  through  the  drudg- 
ery of  examining  all  De  Wette's  divisions  founded  upon 
what  he  is  pleased  to  call  diversities  of  style,  and  have 
risen  from  the  task  entirely  satisfied  that  there  is  no 
good  foundation  for  any  such  wide  diversities  as  he 
maintains  are  to  be  found,  making  it  possible  with  any 
degree  of  certainty  to  identify  the  different  writers. 
The  self-contradictory  nature  of  some  of  the  rules  by 
which  he  professes  to  be  governed,  the  different  words 
which  in  different  sections  he  quotes  as  proving  the 
identity  of  the  authorship  of  some  sections  and  the  dif- 
ferent authorship  of  other  sections,  are  sufficient  to  lead 


174  A   STUDY   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

the  student  to  suspect  that  a  mistake  has  been  made  in 
this  portion  of  his  Introduction  ;  and  upon  further  and 
closer  examination  he  will  find  his  suspicions  changed 
into  firm  conclusions  that  such  heterogeneousness  of 
style,  as  is  affirmed  so  decidedly  to  exist,  is  not  to  be 
found  in  these  books.  But  we  will  not  be  allured  much 
further  from  a  positive  consideration  of  our  subject  by 
the  fruitful  field  of  criticism  which  opens  before  us  iu 
this  direction. 

A  very  brief  space  only  must  be  taken  to  illustrate 
the  fatuity  of  all  such  attempts  to  cull  out  the  parts 
which  are  attributed  to  the  different  hypothetical 
writers.  I  use  De  Wette's  fragments,  who  confesses 
to  following  "  Stahelin's  plan."  Did  De  Wette  test  this 
plan  by  comparing  it  with  the  text  ?  It  does  not  seem 
possible.  He  says  Exodus  xvi.  is  from  the  Elohist 
writer,  yet  God  is  called  Elohim  but  once  and  jfehovah 
twenty-two  times.  Chapter  xx.,  19-21,  is  Jehovistic, 
and  yet  God  is  called  Elohim  three  limes  and  not  once 
Jehovah.  Leviticus  iii.,  6,  is  called  Elohistic,  yet  God 
is  called  Jehovah.  These  are  selected  as  Elohistic,  yet 
God  is  called  Jehovah  in  all  of  them  :  Leviticus  vi.,  18; 
vii.,  20,  21  ;  X.,  15,  used  twice.  Leviticus  xiv.,  Jehovah 
is  used  twenty-three  times,  Elohim  once.  Leviticus  i.- 
iii.,  Jehovah  twenty-nine  times,  Elohim  once ;  xvii., 
4-10,  Jehovah  seven  times,  Elohim  not  once ;  xix.,  8, 
34,  Jehovah  in  each;  xxii.,  3,  Jehovah  twice;  xxiv.,  16, 
22,  Jehovah  in  both;  xxvii.,  9,  11,  16,  21,  22,  28,  Jeho- 
vah eight  times  and  Elohim  not  once  in  these  later  ref- 
erences. Let  us  look  into  Numbers  i.-x. :  Jehovah  is 
used  ninety-nine  times,  Elohim  once!  xviii.,  Jehovah 
sixteen  times,   Elohim  not  once ;  xx.,   1-13,   Jehovah 


EVIDENCE    FROM    STYLE   AND    LANGUAGE.  1)5 

seven  times,  Elohim  once ;  xxv.,  1-18,  Jehovah  six 
times,  Elohim  once.  These  are  sufficient  illustrations 
of  the  complete  unreliableness  of  this  attempt  to  parcel 
out  these  books,  Exodus  —  Numbers,  among  different 
authors  on  this  use  of  the  names  of  God.  Further 
exposure  was  made  of  the  attempt  in  the  Review  of 
Kuenen,  p.  71.* 

*  The  utter  futility  of  all  attempts  to  separate  the  Levitica!  or  priestly  parts 
of  the  middle  books,  Exodus — Numbers,  from  the  rest  of  the  writing,  will  be 
best  understood  by  the  reader  from  the  disagreements  of  the  scholars  who  have 
attempted  to  separate  them.  I  will  give  the  parts  selected  by  Nbldeke,  as 
quoted  by  Prof.  Smith,  pp.  442,  443,  and  as  selected  by  Stahelin,  as  quoted  in 
Parker's  De  Wette,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  106-130. 

For  greater  ease  in  comparing  them,  I  will  tabulate  their  selections.  The 
verses  selected  are  often  not  connected. 


Exodus, 

chapter 

i-i 

Noldeke 

9 

verses; 

Stahelin 

22 

" 

" 

ii., 

2i 

" 

3 

" 

vi., 

27 

" 

30 

" 

vii., 

i5i 

" 

7 

<( 

XX. 

xxi. 

viii., 
ix., 
xi., 
xii., 
xiii., 
xiv., 

XV., 

xvi.; 

xvii., 

xix., 

-xxiv., 

-xxxi.. 

17 

7^ 

5 

2 
37 

3 
15  3 

2i 

36 
16 

2 

3 
all 

-2 

ti 

0 
0 
0 

42 
4 
0 
0 

IS 
0 
0 

ii8» 
all 

" 

XXXV. -xl. 

all 

" 

all 

Leviticus 

i. 

-xxvi., 

,  2 

all  but  48 

" 

all 

" 

xxvii. 

all 

" 

allt 

Numbers 

'     '' 

i.-viii., 
ix.-x.. 

22 

28 

all 
all 

.< 

4  verses  more 
9  verses  more 

" 

xiii., 

193 

-2 

" 

all 

•  De  Wette  and  Parker  (lifter  from  both  Noldeke  and  Stahelin  and  from  each  other. 
t  I'arker  utterly  objectB  to  both. 


176  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

I  cannot  close  this  already  extended  discussion  of  the 
"  archaic  language  "  of  the  Pentateuch  as  proof  of  its 
high  antiquity,  without  saying  that  my  reading  of  the 
Hebrew  and  my  examination  of  the  discussion  of  the 
eminent  critics  quoted  above  compel  me  to  make  three 
periods  of  the  language  of  the  Old  Testament  Script- 
ures :  The  first  covering  the  Pentateuch  ;  the  second, 
Joshua  —  Kings;  the  third,  Chronicles  —  Esther,  The 
poetical  books  belonging  to  the  second  and  third  periods 
can  be  nearly  as  easily  distinguished  as  the  historical. 

Numbers,  chapter 


er             xiv., 

Nokleke 

23     varies; 

Stahelin 

all 

xvi., 

7  3-2    " 

all 

xvii.-xix., 

" 

all 

'• 

confused 

XX., 

" 

I  Si        " 

confused 

xxi., 

<( 

2j^        " 

" 

0 

xxii., 

" 

I           " 

" 

0 

XXV., 

" 

18 

" 

0 

xxvi., 

" 

11%      " 

6S 

xxvii., 

" 

all 

" 

all 

xxviii., 

" 

0 

all 

xxix., 

" 

0         " 

" 

all 

XXX., 

" 

14 

16 

xxxi., 

•' 

all         " 

all 

xxxii., 

" 

2i'A        " 

32 

xxxiii., 

" 

50         " 

" 

49 

xxxiv.-xxxvi.. 

" 

all          " 

" 

all 

Decided  dissent  is  expressed  by  both  De  Wette  and  Parker  from  many  of 
these  selections,  which  I  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  note.  Prof.  Smiih  says, 
"  Noldeke's  table  is  generally  accepted  as  careful  and  correct  in  essentials.''' 
De  Wette  says,  "  Staheiin's  is,  as  a  whole,  certainly  correct'.  "  The  ital'.c^  are 
mine.  Comment  is  unnecessary.  But  that  the  reader  may  see  what  this  table 
does  not  show,  the  tnanner  in  which  these  verses  a-e  selected  by  Nbldeke,  I  will 
give  a  few  specimens  as  furnishing  farther  proof  of  the  imaginary  line  which 
separates  the  verses  chosen  and  the  verses  left.  Exodus  i.,  1-5,  7,  13,  14;  ii., 
23,  24,  25;  xiii.,  I,  2,  20;  xii.,  1-23,  2S,  37,  40-51;  xi.,  9,  10;  Numbers  xvi.,  i, 
half  of  2,  3-11,  16-23,  pi""'  ol  24,  26,  27,  35;  xx.xii.,  2  (3?),  4-6,  16-32,  part  of 
33,  40.  These  specimens  must  suffice.  Any  reader  can  turn  to  the  Bible,  and 
judge  whether  there  is  any  ground  for  selecting  just  these  passages.  I  have  no 
fear  of  the  result. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE,      1 77 
SECTION  II.      EVIDENCE  FROM  CONTENTS  AND  STRUCTlfRE. 

Were  there,  therefore,  no  other  evidence  of  the  age 
of  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch,  its  archaic  lan- 
guage would  be  sufficient  to  determine  it.  But  there  is 
other  evidence  corroborative  of  this,  and  also  adding  its 
own  independent  weight  to  the  same  conclusion.  This 
evidence  is  found  in  the  contettts  and  structure  of  the 
books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  determines  their  age  as 
certainly  and  as  evidently  as  the  contents  and  structure 
of  the  rocks  determine  their  age.  The  contents  and 
structure  of  the  Silurian  rocks  no  more  surely  prove 
their  deposition  to  have  been  before  the  Devonian  than 
the  contents  and  structure  of  the  Pentateuch  prove  it  to 
have  been  written  before  any  other  books  in  the  Bible. 

Another  internal  argument  in  favor  of  the  antiquity 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  found  in  the  j'ournal-likd  character 
of  the  work  itself.  It  is  in  precisely  the  form  it  would 
have  been  in,  had  it  been  written  under  the  circum- 
stances commonly  believed  to  exist  at  the  time  of  its 
composition.  It  is  fragmentary  and  abrupt,  relating 
incidents  in  such  a  manner  and  form  as  to  induce  the 
belief  that  the  writer  was  on  the  spot  and  narrated  what 
he  saw,  and  his  own  feelings  under  the  circumstances. 
To  fully  appreciate  this  characteristic  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, or  the  last  four  books  of  it,  we  must  go  into 
particulars,  which  will  show  very  clearly  that  they  were 
composed  on  the  spot  where  the  transactions  recorded 
transpired. 

I.  I  will  first  refer  to  the  occurrence  of  unexpected 
difficulties  which  arose,  making  it  necessary  to  amend  or 


178  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

repeal  laws  which  had  been  previously  enacted.  A 
marked  instance  of  this  nature  occurs  respecting  the 
law  of  inheritance  in  accordance  with  which  none  but 
sons  could  inherit  the  real  estate  of  the  father;  and 
specific  regulations  were  made  respecting  the  manner 
in  which  it  should  be  divided.  But,  when  the  tribes 
were  about  to  enter  upon  possession  of  the  promised 
land,  the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  came  forward,  and 
stated  that  their  father  had  left  no  sons  at  his  death, 
and  therefore  that  their  father's  portion  of  the  land 
would  go  out  of  the  family.  They  pray,  therefore,  that 
a  possession  may  be  given  them  among  their  brethren. 
To  meet  this  emergency,  Moses  enacts  a  new,  or  rather 
amends  the  old,  law.  He  enacts  that,  "  if  a  man  die 
and  have  no  son,  then  ye  shall  cause  his  inheritance  to 
pass  unto  his  daughter."  And  farther  provisions  are 
made  in  case  no  daughter  should  survive  (Numbers 
xxvi.,  i-ii).  If  we  turn  forward  nine  chapters,  we 
shall  find  that  this  new  law  was  found  to  be  as  defec- 
tive as  the  old  one,  but  in  another  direction.  It  was 
the  intention  of  Moses  that  no  part  of  the  inheritance 
of  one  tribe  should  pass  into  the  possession  of  another 
tribe.  But  these  daughters  of  Zelophehad  were  pro- 
posing to  marry  into  another  tribe, —  not  into  that  to 
which  their  father  belonged.  This  caused  the  children 
of  the  other  families  of  the  tribe  to  make  complaint  to 
Moses  that  his  amendment  to  the  old  law,  which  gave 
the  inheritance  to  the  sons  only,  and  giving  it,  in  case 
of  no  sons,  to  the  daughters,  would  disinherit  their  tribe 
of  a  part  of  their  estate,  since  these  daughters  of 
Zelophehad  were  about  to  marry  out  of  the  tribe,  and 
thus  take  their  father's  inheritance  with  them.     Moses 


EVIDENCE    FROM    CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE.     179 

saw  the  conflicting  nature  of  both  the  original  law  and 
his  amendment,  and  he  amended  the  amendment  by  en- 
acting that,  in  all  cases,  "  every  daughter  that  posses- 
seth  an  inheritance  in  any  tribe  of  the  children  of 
Israel  shall  be  wife  unto  one  of  the  family  of  the  tribe 
of  her  father,  that  the  children  of  Israel  may  enjoy 
every  man  the  inheritance  of  his  fathers."  Let,  there- 
fore, the  daughters  of  Zelophehad  "  marry  to  whom 
they  think  best ;  only  to  the  family  of  the  tribe  of  their 
fathers  shall  they  marry "  (Numbers  xxxvi.).  Thus, 
after  three  experiments,  the  law  is  perfected,  and  the 
details  of  the  cause  of  these  changes  are  given  as  if 
written  on  the  spot.  Would  a  compiler  of  the  laws  of 
the  Hebrews  in  the  time  of  Ezra  have  thus  stated  this 
matter?     It  is  very  improbable,  not  to  say  incredible. 

Another  incident  is  related,  showing  the  imperfect 
character  of  the  first  enactment,  and  how,  from  time  to 
time,  laws  were  added  to  meet  these  new  emergencies. 
A  man  was  found  violating  the  Sabbath  by  picking  up 
sticks  (Numbers  xv.,  32).  The  law  had  forbidden  all 
work.  A  man  is  found  violating  the  law :  how  is  he 
to  be  punished  .-•  Moses  adds  a  new  section  to  the 
law  containing  the  penalty  for  violating  the  Sabbath. 
Stone  him  with  stones  without  the  camp.  Here  we  see 
clearly  that  a  history  of  the  origin  of  the  penalty  is 
given,  which  would  not  have  been  given  by  a  compiler 
of  a  later  age.  The  same  is  true  of  the  law  against 
blasphemy  (Leviticus  xxiv.,  10-23)  to  be  noticed  soon. 

The  change  which  was  made  in  the  law  respecting 
usury  indicates  the  journal-like  character  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. It  is  first  enacted  (Exodus  xxii.,  25)  that  no  usury 
shall  be  taken  of  the  poor,  as  it  would  be  oppressive ; 


l8o  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

but  it  is  distinctly  implied  that  it  might  be  taken  of  the 
rich.  Just  as  the  tribes  were  to  enter  Canaan,  thirty- 
eight  years  after,  we  find  that  this  law  is  so  modified  as 
to  forbid  the  taking  of  usury  from  any  Hebrew  (Deut- 
eronomy xxiii.,  19).  It  had  been  found,  probably,  that 
very  little  money  would  be  loaned  to  the  poor  with- 
out usury,  when  it  could  be  loaned  to  the  rich  with 
usury.  All  usury  of  Hebrews  is  therefore  now  forbiddm. 
But  another  curious  change  is  found  in  these  usury  laws 
respecting  strangers  who  came  to  dwell  among  the  He- 
brews. Soon  after  the  people  left  Egypt,  it  was  enacted 
that  no  usury  should  be  taken  of  the  poor  of  their  own 
people,  but  of  the  poor  of  other  people  who  had  come 
among  them  nothing  is  said.  In  about  two  years,  just 
before  the  people  leave  Sinai,  a  more  stringent  law  is 
passed  respecting  usury  (Leviticus  xxv.,  35) ;  and  stran- 
gers are  included  in  it,  and  especially  those  who  had 
been  overtaken  by  calamity  and  had  lost  their  property. 
Just  before  entering  Canaan  (Deuteronomy  xxiii.,  19), 
we  find  that  the  law  forbidding  usury  when  loans  were 
made  to  sojourners  and  strangers  is  repealed.  It  is 
very  easy  to  see  why  a  writer  on  the  spot  should  insert 
all  these  particulars ;  but  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  a 
later  writer  giving  a  compend  of  the  law  should  have 
inserted  all  these  minute  matters,  or  indeed  how  he 
could  have  known  them  unless  some  one  had  written 
them  at  the  time,  and  the  later  writer  had  used  his 
journal.  The  old  law  was  found  upon  trial  to  be  im- 
perfect :  an  amendment  was  enacted,  and  inserted  in 
the  book  containing  the  legislative  proceedings,  as  is 
done  at  this  day. 

An  unforeseen  difficulty  arose  respecting  the  passover 


EVIDENCE    FROM    CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE.      l8l 

(Leviticus  xxiii.,  i).  Every  Israelite  was  bound  by  the 
original  law  to  keep  the  passover  on  the  fourteenth  day 
of  the  first  month,  and  a  heavy  penalty  rested  upon 
him  who  failed  to  obey  it.  Yet  it  was  equally  perilous 
for  a  person  ritually  unclean  to  minister  in  any  sacred 
rite.  In  Numbers  ix.,  we  have  the  record  of  such  a 
conflict  in  the  laws.  "  Certain  men  who  were  defiled 
by  the  dead  body  of  a  man,"  so  that  they  could  not 
keep  the  passover,  came  to  Moses  and  Aaron  and  in- 
quired what  they  should  do.  Moses  saw  the  conflict  in 
the  laws,  and  enacted  that  they,  and  all  persons  who 
should  hereafter  be  in  their  situation,  might  eat  the 
passover  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  second  month,  re- 
garding, at  the  same  time,  all  the  ceremonies  which 
were  required  of  those  who  ate  it  in  the  previous 
month. 

A  long  series  of  amendments  is  found  in  Deuter- 
onomy to  adapt  laws,  many  of  which  were  designed 
for  a  camp  and  nomadic  life,  to  the  settled,  agricultural 
condition  of  the  people  in  Canaan.  In  camp,  they  were 
required  to  kill  their  animals  for  food  at  the  tabernacle, 
that  the  priests  might  see  that  no  idolatrous  rites  were 
performed  with  the  blood  and  entrails :  in  the  land  of 
their  inheritance,  they  could  kill  animals  for  food  at 
their  own  homes.  Tents  were  to  be  exchanged  for 
houses,  and  laws  respecting  their  construction  and 
purification  are  enacted. 

A  difficulty  arose  respecting  the  penalty  to  be  in- 
flicted on  one  of  that  "  mixed  "  race  which  came  out  of 
Egypt  with  Israel.  A  son  of  an  Israelitish  woman  and 
of  a  man  of  Egypt  had  a  fray,  blasphemed  and  cursed. 
He  is  kept  in  ward  till  his  case  could  be  inquired  into , 


l82  A   STUDY   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

and  it  is  at  last  determined,  after  careful  inquiry,  that 
he  should  be  put  to  death  as  an  Israelite  must  be  who 
had  committed  the  same  crime  (Leviticus  xxiv.,  10-23). 
Such  changes,  additions,  and  amendments  in  the  laws, 
made  to  meet  emergencies  apparently  unforeseen,  most 
certainly  indicate  a  writer  on  the  spot,  and  not  a  histo- 
rian of  remotely  succeeding  generations. 

II.  But  this  Book  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  light 
which  it  throws  upon  the  age  of  the  Pentateuch  de- 
mand a  thorough  examination,  as  so  much  misappre- 
hension exists  concerning  both. 

Dr.  Kuenen  affirms  that  the  forger  of  Deuteronomy 
iniended  to  deceive  the  people,  and  that  "men  used  to 
perpetrate  such  fictions  without  any  qualms  of  con- 
science." *  De  Wette  says :  "  The  author  of  Deuter- 
onomy would  have  us  regard  his  whole  book  as  the 
work  of  Moses"  (Parker's  De  Wette,  Vol.  II.,  p.  159). 
Davidson  says,  "  A  late  writer  represents  the  whole  of 
Deuteronomy,  or  at  least  chapters  iv.,  44-xxx,,  as  pro- 
ceeding from  Moses'  hand."  ..."  The  deception  was 
an  innocent  one,  being  merely  a  veil  or  fo7-m  for 
communicating  and  enforcing  lessons  of  importance  !  " 
Indeed,  all  supporters  of  this  theory  admit  that 
Deuteronomy  is  a  flagrant  forgery.  Yet  they  are 
compelled  to  admit,  also,  that  the  writer  had  before 
him  many  older  documents  containing  laws  ancient 
and  venerated.  I  propose  to  show  how  the  laws  given 
at  Sinai,  forty  years  before,  were  amended  on  the  east 
bank  of  the  Jordan  by  the  original  law-giver,  and  thus 
prove  by  its  contents  that  the  address  of  Moses  is  not 
a  "  fiction  "  written  eight  centuries  later,  but  a  substan- 

*Vol.  II.,  p.  18. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE.      1 83 

tially  correct  report  of  a  real  transaction.  In  Deuter- 
onomy xii.-xxvi.,  we  have  a  series  of  additions  and 
amendments  to  previous  laws,  all  based  upon  new  circum- 
stances or  defects  discovered  iii  the  original  enactment,  none 
of  them  affecting  the  fundamental  law  of  the  nation. 
It  would  require  more  space  than  I  can  take,  and  more 
patience  in  the  reader  than  can  be  assumed,  to  quote 
or  refer  to  all  the  changes  made  and  the  reasons  for 
them ;  nor  is  it  necessary  for  my  argument  to  do  so. 
A  few  must  suffice  as  indicating  the  rest.  I  give  the 
following  as  average  illustrations  of  all  of  them  :  Per- 
mission is  given  to  the  people  to  kill  animals  at  their 
own  homes  instead  of  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle. 
Secretly  enticing  to  idolatry  is  made  a  capital  crime. 
Idolatrous  cities  are  to  be  razed  to  the  ground. 
Mourners  are  not  to  shave  between  the  eyes.  A  dead 
carcass  may  be  sold  to  an  alien.  The  animals  that 
may  be  eaten  are  named.  When  the  distance  is  "  too 
great  to  carry  the  tithe  of  corn  and  wine  and  oil  and 
the  firstlings  of  thy  herds  and  flocks "  to  the  place 
which  God  shall  choose,  "  then  thou  shalt  turn  it  into 
money  "  to  use  at  the  place  chosen.  Payment  of  debts 
is  not  to  be  enforced  in  the  Sabbatical  year  from  the 
poor.  Slaves  are  to  be  emancipated  on  the  seventh 
year.  Female  slaves  are  to  have  the  same  rights  as 
males  :  they  are  to  be  provided  for,  when  bearing,  by 
their  master.  Judges  are  to  be  appointed  in  all  cities. 
Regulations  are  made  respecting  a  king.  An  addition 
is  made  to  a  priest's  perquisites.  A  test  of  a  false 
prophet  is  given.  Minute  regulations  are  made  re- 
specting cities  of  refuge.  Landmarks  are  not  to  be 
changed.     Two  witnesses  are  to  be  required  for  "  any 


184  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

iniquity"  as  well  as  for  "murder."  A  false  witness  is 
to  be  punished  as  the  criminal,  if  guilty,  would  be. 
Regulations  are  given  for  drafting  soldiers  for  war. 
Trees  are  not  to  be  destroyed  when  besieging  cities. 
The  treatment  of  a  town  in  case  of  uncertain  murder 
is  described.  Conditions  of  marrying  a  female  cap- 
tive are  given,  etc.  There  are  over  sixty  amendments 
and  additions  to  the  law  as  contained  in  Exodus  — 
Numbers,  in  these  chapters,  and  they  are  such  as 
one  having  the  original  laws  before  him  would,  under 
the  circumstances,  have  made ;  but  it  appears  incred- 
ible that  one  having  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy  before 
him  could  hav&  composed  those  of  Exodus  —  Num- 
bers, as  the  theory  assumes. 

Again,  the  indirect  quotations  of  the  original  laws 
and  references  to  them  contained  in  Exodus  —  Num- 
bers, by  the  speaker  in  Deuteronomy,  in  connection 
with  the  amendments  and  additions  which  he  makes, 
are  of  such  a  kind  as  to  compel  the  belief  that  Exo- 
dus—  Numbers  were  in  the  hand  of  the  speaker;  at 
any  rate,  they  raise  a  violent  presumption  that  these 
books  were  already  written,  and  their  contents  well 
known  to  the  Deuteronomist. 

In  about  a  dozen  places,  the  speaker  in  Deuteron- 
omy quotes  from  what  God  "  had  commanded "  or 
"said,"  and  his  quotation  or  reference  is  found  in  the 
previous  books.  In  some  instances,  the  quotations  are 
verbal ;  in  others,  free,  but  including  a  peculiar  word  or 
phrase,  as  not  to  "  lift  up  "  an  iron  tool  on  building  an 
altar  (Deuteronomy  xxvii.,  5=Exodus  xx.,  26);  to  drive 
out  the  Canaanites  "little  by  little"  (Deuteronomy 
vii.,  23=Exodus  xxiii.,  30);  God  is  a  "jealous  God" 


EVIDENCE   FROM    CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE.      1 85 

(Deuteronomy  iv.,  24= Exodus  xx.,  5);  thou  shalt  not 
wear  a  garment  of  "  divers  sorts  "  (Deuteronomy  xxii., 
ii=Leviticus  xix.,  9).  Some  of  these  words  and 
phrases  are  used  only  in  the  passages  quoted.  These 
quotations  are  sufficient  to  indicate  the  character  of 
the  rest  of  the  passages,  and  the  reader  can  judge  of 
their  weight  in  this  argument.  To  an  unbiassed  critic 
who  had  no  theory  to  support,  they  alone  would  seem 
to  be  decisive  of  the  whole  question.  But  lest  some 
readers  should  still  hesitate  to  accept  this  conclusion 
on  the  testimony  of  these  passages,  I  will  trespass 
upon  the  patience  of  others  by  quoting  a  few  more 
passages  which  must  remove  the  least  shadow  of 
doubt.  In  Deuteronomy  i.,  16-18,  Moses  says  the 
"judges  shall  not  respect  persons  in  judgment,  but  ye 
shall  hear  the  small  as  well  as  great,  and  judge  right- 
eously between  every  man  and  his  brother.  ...  I  cojn- 
manded  you  at  that  time  [*  whilst  at  Horeb ']  all  the 
things  which  ye  should  do."  In  Leviticus  xix.,  15, 
is  the  original  law.  In  Deuteronomy  iii.,  18,  Moses 
says,  addressing  the  tribes  which  were  to  settle  on 
the  east  side  of  Jordan,  "  I  commanded  you  at  that 
time,  saying,  Ye  shall  pass  over  armed  before  youi 
brethren,"  and  help  them  subdue  the  land  first.  This 
command  is  in  Numbers  xxxii.,  20-23.  ^^  Deuter 
onomy  xi.,  22-25,  "^  order  to  encourage  the  people  tci 
go  up  and  take  the  land,  Moses  reminds  them  that  the 
"  Lord  hath  said  that  he  will  drive  out  all  these  na- 
tions from  before  j^ou."  This  saying  of  the  Lord  is  in 
Exodus  xxiii.,  27-29.  In  Deuteronomy  xviii.,  2,  he 
says,  "  The  tribe  of  Levi  .  .  .  shall  have  no  inheritance 
among  their  brethren  ;  the  Lord  is  their  inheritance,  as 


l86  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

he  hath  said  unto  them " ;  and  he  said  it  in  Numbers 
xviii,,  20.  In  Deuteronomy  xx.,  17,  Moses  repeats  the 
*'  command  of  the  Lord  "  contained  in  Exodus  xxxiv., 
II,  to  drive  out  or  exterminate  the  "  Hittites  and  the 
Amorites,  the  Canaanites  and  the  Perizzites,  the  Hiv- 
ites  and  the  Jebusites,"  from  the  land.  In  Deuter- 
onomy xxiv.,  8,  Moses  directs  the  people  "to  take 
heed  in  the  plague  of  leprosy  to  observe  diligently  and 
do  according  to  all  that  the  priests  the  Levites  shall 
teach  you ;  as  I  commanded  these,  so  ye  shall  observe 
to  do."  This  "  command  "  is  found  in  Leviticus  xiii., 
14.* 

*  A  writer  in  the  Unitarian  Review,  October,  iSSo,  p.  303,  after  reci.ing  the 
stoning  of  Achan's  children,  with  their  father,  for  his  sin,  and  the  hanging  of 
seven  of  Saul's  sons  for  the  sin  of  Saul  in  slaying  the  Gibeonites,  says,  "  If  they 
had  had  the  law  of  Deuteronomy,  '  The  children  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the 
father,'  "  Joshua  would  not  "have  killed  Achan's  innocent  children,"  nor  David 
"  have  hanged  the  seven  innocent  sons  of  Saul."  Perhaps  they  were  no  better 
interpreters  of  the  Law  of  Moses  than  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
headed  by  the  profound  Chief  Justice  Taney,  when  he  said,  "The  negroes  had  no 
rights  which  a  white  man  was  bound  to  respect " ;  and,  possibly,  the  apparent  con- 
flict of  laws  may  have  puzzled  the  poorly  educated  jurists,  Joshua  and  David, 
for  the  so-called  ten  tables  announced  that  their  God  was  "  a  jealous  God,  visit iitg 
the  itiiquity  ofthefatJiers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tion of  them  that  hate  him.''  If,  under  the  light  of  the  nineteenth  century,  the 
highest  court  in  the  United  States  could  announce  such  an  opinion  as  Chief 
Justice  Taney's,  may  not  Joshua  have  been  mistaken  three  thousand  years 
before?  More  remarkable  still,  two  i?//^)^//'?  (i^c/'i-w«i  were  made  by  the  same 
court  within  about  a  year,  touching  a  more  vital  point  in  the  Constitution, —  the 
constitutionality  of  the  legal-tender  law  raising  paper  money  to  an  equality  with 
gold.  Different  interpretations  of  a  law  are  so  far  from  proving  that  there  is  no 
jaw  that  they  prove  its  existence  past  all  question. 

It  may  not  be  inapposite  to  remind  the  reader  that  different  interpretations  are 
very  frequently  given  of  law  by  different  administrations,  and  that  laws  for 
generations  obsolete  or  remaining  unenforced  are  revived  and  enforced,  as  just 
at  this  time  the  English  law  of  eviction,  which  has  been  obsolete  for  two  centuries, 
is  being  enforced  in  Ireland,  or  as  an  old  law  of  Maryland  has  just  been  dis- 
covered, which  requires  the  tongue  of  a  Unitarian,  one  who  denies  the  Trinity,  to 
be  bored  through  with  an  iron,  which  never  was  enforced  and  whose  existence 
surprises  the  present  generation. 

He  also  objects  that  two  different  reasons  would  not  have  been  given  for  keeping 


EVIDENCE   FROM   CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE.     187 

But  I  must  refrain  from  quoting  further.  Reasonable 
readers  have  rights  which  unreasonable  ones  are  bound 
to  respect.  If  these  passages  are  not  conclusive  and 
do  not  remove  the  last  shadow  of  a  reasonable  doubt, 
then  the  presence  and  testimony  of  Moses  himself 
could  not  dispel  it.  The  author  of  Deuteronomy  was 
familiar  with  the  preceding  books,  or  historical  ques- 
tions are  incapable  of  settlement. 

So  evident  are  these  references,  and  so  numerous, 
that  even  Dr.  Davidson  admits  that  "  it  is  possible  that 
the  successive  laws  may  have   been  given   by  Moses, 

the  Sabbath  in  Deuteronomy  v.  and  Exodus  xx.  by  the  so-called  Originist,  the 
former  because  of  release  from  Egyptian  bondage,  the  latter  because  of  God's  rest 
from  creating.  But  would  the  Originist  writing  a/ier  the  Deuteronomist,  with 
whose  reason  he  was  familiar  and  the  people  also,  and  which  would  be  so  pleasant 
to  them,  have  given  another  and  obviously  much  less  touching  and  humane 
reason  ? 

The  same  writer  affirms  that  Deuteronomy  and  the  historical  books  take  a 
wholly  different  view  of  the  sacerdotal  tribe  and  the  priesthood  from  Exodus  — 
Numbers  {Unitarian  Review,  p.  307).  He  says  that  in  Joshua  — Kings  the 
restriction  to  sacrifice  to  the  family  of  Aaron  is  unknown.  This  objection  has 
been  fully  answered  in  the  text.  In  some  cases  the  law  may  have  been  violated 
by  supposed  necessity,  in  others  priests  may  have  been  officiators,  but  not  named. 
Quid  facit  jier  alium  facit  per  se ;  and  so  far  is  it  from  being  true,  as  this 
writer  affirms,  that  Ezekiel  is  the  parent  of  the  priestly  legislation,  that  he  is 
perpetually  referring  to  and  quoting  the  laws  relating  to  sacrifices  already  in 
existence,  as  I  have  most  fully  illustrated. 

The  same  writer  affirms  in  italics,  on  page  305,  that  the  "  Deuteronomist  is  unac- 
quainted with  the  Book  of  Origins,"  or  the  main  portion  of  the  other  books  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  appeals  to  Deuteronomy  xii.,  8,  and  Leviticus  xiv.,  8,  9,  to  prove 
it.  In  Deuteronomy,  referring  to  the  change  in  their  condition  consequent  on  the 
people's  passing  over  Jordan,  the  writer  says,  "  Ye  shall  not  do  after  all  the  things 
that  we  do  here  this  day,  every  man  whatsoever  is  right  in  his  own  eyes,"  — that  is, 
regarding  the  law  as  best  you  can  in  your  migratory  condition.  But,  in  Leviticus, 
the  Originist,  so  called,  says  that  he  who  regardeth  not  the  law  of  sacrifice 
referred  to  "  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people."  But  if  the  Originist  wrote 
a/'/^r  the  Deuteronomist,  as  is  naaintained,  would  he  have  written  that  it  was  a 
law  given  on  the  mount  to  Moses  by  Jehovah,  when  the  Deuteronomist  had 
v^rritten  that  there  was  no  such  law  in  existence  according  to  these  interpreters? 


l88  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

from  the  first  code  at  Sinai  till  the  time  of  his  death  in 
Moab ;  the  legislation  being  supplemented,  enlarged, 
modified,  altered  as  circumstances  arose."  *  And  he 
also  admits,  respecting  Deuteronomy,  that  "  it  is  pos- 
sible indeed  to  conceive  of  Moses,  provided  he  wrote 
the  preceding  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  giving  a  survey 
of  the  historical  circumstances  through  which  he  had 
passed  at  the  head  of  the  Israelites,  and  modifying  or 
abrogating  such  enactments  as  would  be  unsuitable  to 
the  people  when  they  had  obtained  possession  of  the 
promised  land."  t  "  There  is  no  doubt,"  he  says,  "  that  it 
[Deuteronomy]  is  built  on  the  historical  facts  embodied 
in  the  former  parts  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  alludes  to 
them  throughout.  Yet  it  is  still  possible  .  .  .  that  his 
[the  author's]  acquaintance  with  them  may  have  been 
borrowed  from  oral  tradition.'^  But,  only  two  pages 
further  on.  Dr.  Davidson  says  :  "  These  proofs  [filling 
three  pages]  of  the  Deuteronomist's  acquaintance  with 
the  four  preceding  books  might  be  multiplied,  since 
almost  every  chapter  presents  some  indication,  however 
slight,  that  writtefi  documents  were  employed  by  him."  % 
Now  pass  on  seven  pages  further,  and  we  find  Dr. 
Davidson  saying,  "The  Deuteronomist  found  the  first 
four  books  made  up  in  their  present  form  of  two  or  more 
leading  documents,  and  terminating  with  Moses' death." 
Comment  on  such  criticism  is  unnecessary.  Dr.  Ku- 
enen,  who  maintains  that  the  chief  portion  of  Exodus 
—  Numbers  was  not  composed  till  two  centuries  after 
Deuteronomy,  must  settle  the  matter  as  he  can  with  Dr. 
Davidson,  who  affirms  that  the  "four  books,"  Genesis 

*Vol.  I.,  p.  75-        t  Vol.  I.,  p.  253. 

t  Vol.  I.,  pp.  386,  3S7.    The  italics  are  mine. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE.         1 89 

—  Numbers,  "in    their    present    form,"    were   in   the 
hands  of  the  Deuteronomist. 

III.  Another  evidence  of  the  time  and  place  and 
manner  of  writing  these  books  and  enacting  these  laws 
is  found  in  Deuteronomy  xxviii.-xxx.  compared  with 
Leviticus  xxvi.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  residence  at 
Sinai,  when  the  code  and  ritual  had  been  given,  Moses 
exhorts  the  people,  Leviticus  xxvi.,  to  obedience,  as 
they  were  soon  to  be  settled  in  the  promised  land,  by 
all  the  motives  which  could  influence  a  patriotic  and 
religious  people.  He  pictures  before  them  all  the 
blessings  of  peace  and  all  the  luxuries  of  prosperity 
consequent  upon  obedience,  and  all  the  desolations 
of  war  and  the  horrors  of  famine  and  plague  which 
will  follow  disobedience.  It  was  as  natural  as  fit  that 
then  and  there  such  an  earnest  and  ardent  and  admon- 
itory address  should  be  made.  But  the  people  did 
not  enter  the  land  as  was  expected.  They  wandered 
about  for  thirty-eight  years,  till  nearly  all  who  heard 
the  address  had  forgotten  it  or  were  dead.  We  are  not 
surprised,  therefore,  to  find,  as  the  people  were  about 
to  enter  the  land  after  their  long  wanderings,  and  as 
their  great  leader  could  not  pass  over  with  them,  that 
he  again  addresses  them  at  even  greater  length  and 
with  supreme  earnestness.  The  same  principles  are 
clothed  in  more  glowing  language,  and  are  warmed 
with  a  patriot's  anxiety  and  importunity.  The  time, 
the  circumstances,  give  coloring  to  the  words  spoken. 
Accept  the  historical  account  as  correct,  and  both 
speeches  find  their  place  and  justification.  Deny  the 
reliableness  of  the  history,  and  either  the  one  or  the 
other  of  the  speeches  is  superfluous,  and  its  origin  can- 


190  A   STUDY  OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

not  be  accounted  for,  nor  the  location  of  the  one  in  the 
Book  of  Leviticus  justified.  The  internal  evidence  of 
the  age  and  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  derived  from  the 
construction,  contents,  and  repeated  references  to  the 
other  books,  and  the  amendments  and  repeal  of  laws 
contained  in  them,  the  enactment  of  new  laws  de- 
manded by  the  changed  conditions  of  the  people,  as 
exhibited  in  Deuteronomy,  would  of  itself  justify  the 
belief  of  the  Mosaic  Age  of  these  books. 

But  there  is  more  evidence  of  the  same  kind  con- 
tained in  the  description  of  the  condition  of  the  people, 
and  the  enactment  of  new  laws,  and  the  amendment  of 
old  ones,  thirty-seven  years  before,  when  the  people 
were  about  to  enter  Canaan  from  Kadesh,  as  written  in 
the  Book  of  Numbers  to  which  we  must  now  turn  our 
attention.* 

IV.  The  fourteenth  chapter  of  Numbers  closes  ap- 
parently the  account  of  the  residence  of  the  people  at 
Kadesh  after  the  repulse  of  the  revolutionary  attempt 
to  force  their  way  into  Canaan.  No  further  account  is 
given  of  them  till  they  appear  again  at  Kadesh  in  the 
desert  of  Zin,  thirty-seven  years  afterwards.  Of  this 
period,  we  know  nothing  except  the  list  of  stations  where 
they  encamped,  given  in  the  thirty-third  chapter,  and 
the  modified  or  new  laws,  given  in  chapters  xv. -xix,, 
including  the  rebellion  of  Korah.  I  propose  now  to 
examine  these  chapters  to  see  what  light  they  throw 
upon  the  age  and  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

These  regulations  were  made  with  express  reference  to 

•A  writer  in  the  Unitarian  Review,  October,  1880,  page  302,  says:  "The 
Deuternnomist  could  not  have  known  the  Levitical  law  as  we  now  have  it.  .  .  .  He 
flatly  contradicts  many  of  its  most  positive  statements."  The  repeal  of  some  of 
the  old  laws  and  the  enactment  of  diSerent  ones,  as  shown  above,  rather  proves 
a  familiarity  with  them. 


EVIDENCE    FROM    CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE.      I91 

the  wants  of  people  when  settled  in  the  promised  land,  and 
when  they  were  supposed  to  be  about  to  enter  it.  "When 
ye  come  into  the  land  of  your  habitations,"  says  Moses, 
you  will  regard  the  following  laws.  As  the  history  re- 
cords, it  was  supposed  by  Moses  as  well  as  by  the 
people  that  they  were  to  enter  at  once  upon  their  inheri- 
tance ;  and  therefore  he  had  so  improved  the  original 
code  as  to  better  adapt  it  to  their  new  condition.  There 
is  no  reason  to  suppose  he  would  have  made  these  addi- 
tions and  amendments,  as  recorded  in  the  fifteenth  chap- 
ter, now,  if  he  had  known  they  were  to  be  wanderers  in 
the  wilderness  one  generation,  or  thirty-seven  years 
longer.  The  history  implies  the  reason  why  these  laws 
were  made  then,  and  the  implication  of  immediate  en- 
trance "into  their  habitations"  contained  in  the  pub- 
lication of  such  laws  confirms  the  authenticity  of  the 
history,  and  shows  the  journal-like  style  of  the  work. 
The  fifteenth  chapter  was  written  evidently  before  the 
repulse  took  place,  and  the  rebellion  was  punished  by 
the  denial  of  that  generation  to  enter  the  land. 

Do  the  laws  themselves,  as  compared  with  other 
laws,  throw  any  light  upon  the  origin  of  these  books  ? 
Chapter  xv.,  1-16,  extends  the  regulation  respecting 
strangers  at  the  passover  to  all  the  sacrificial  ritual,  as  if 
the  people  were  to  be  so  situated  that  strangers  would 
be  very  likely  to  join  them  more  frequently  than  they 
had  done  before  ;  and,  most  obviously,  strangers  would 
be  more  numerous  when  they  were  settled  in  the  land. 
Again,  the  quantity  of  flour  and  oil  and  wine  is  specified 
for  each  offering  of  a  lamb  or  of  a  ram  or  of  a  bullock, 
as  if  there  would  be  hereafter  no  lack  of  flour  and  oil 
and  wine  as  there  was  in  the  desert,  when  the  quantity 


192  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

for  an  offering  was  not  specified  (Leviticus  ii.), —  indi- 
cating that  they  were  about  to  change  a  nomadic  for 
an  agricultural  life. 

Numbers  XV.,  17-21.  This  law  of  the  "heave  offer- 
ing "  of  a  "cake  of  the  first  of  the  dough,"  with  grain 
taken  from  the  '''' threshmg  floor,^''  is  new^  and  implies 
that  they  were  soon  to  be  husbandmen.  No  such  cere- 
mony of  thankfulness  could  have  been  observed  in  the 
desert. 

Numbers  xv.,  22-29.  "  ^  ^^^  o^  the  goats  "  is  added 
to  the  sin-offering  for  sins  of  ignorance  of  the  congre- 
gation (Leviticus  iv.,  13-21).  The  cause  of  this  addi- 
tion does  not  appear.  But  emphasis  is  laid  on  the 
obligation  of  "  the  stranger  that  sojourneth  "  with  them 
to  obey  this  law,  as  if  more  such  persons  would  be 
likely  to  be  among  them.  This  is  new.  Numbers  xv., 
30-36.  The  presumptuous  sinner  is  to  "  be  cut  off 
from  among  his  people"  ;  and  a  case  of  such  presumpt- 
uous violation  of  the  law  of  observing  the  Sabbath  is 
brought  before  Moses,  and  he  decides  that  the  form  of 
"cutting  off  from  the  people,"  or  that  capital  punish- 
ment, shall  be  stoning.  This  law  and  the  form  of  the 
penalty  are  both  new. 

Numbers  xv.,  37-41.  The  law  requiring  the  wear- 
ing of  "  fringes  on  the  borders  of  their  garments  "  is 
new.  This  law,  unlike  the  others,  does  not  include 
"strangers,"  as  it  indicates  race.  There  is  nothing  in 
either  this  law  or  the  one  before  to  indicate  the  time  in 
which  they  were  made ;  but  their  connection  with  the 
others  raises  a  strong  presumption  that  they  were  en- 
acted at  the  same  time,  and  before  the  repulse  on  "  the 
hill  even  unto  Hormah  "  and  the  rebellion  of  Korah. 


EVIDENCE   FROM   CONTENTS   AND    STRUCTURE.     193 

Numbers  xvi.  contains  an  account  of  the  rebellion 
of  Korah  and  Dathan  and  Abiram  and  On, —  the 
first  a  Levite,  the  other  three  Reubenites.  That  a 
second  rebellion  should  have  sprung  up  just  at  this 
time  among  the  chief  men,  since  Moses  and  Aaron  had 
failed  to  take  them  into  the  promised  land  and  were 
about  to  lead  them  back  into  the  desert,  is  very  credi- 
ble. They  gave  as  a  justification  for  their  rebellion 
the  very  plausible,  not  to  say  satisfactory,  reason  that 
Moses  and  x\aron  had  taken  too  much  upon  themselves, 
as  the  recent  great  reverses  and  the  sufferings  of  the 
great  and  terrible  wilderness  journeyings  threatened 
showed.  Reuben  was  the  eldest  son,  and  Judah  the 
fourth  :  why  should  not  the  children  of  Reuben  lead  in 
the  march,  and  command  instead  of  being  placed  behind 
Juddh,  as  second  in  rank  ?  Korah  was  a  descendant 
of  an  elder  son  of  Kohath  than  Elzaphan,  who  had  been 
made  "  chief  of  the  families  of  the  Kohathites,"  and 
was  cousin  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  might  well  aspire, 
after  such  disasters  and  such  prospects,  to  a  higher 
place.  The  time  and  circumstances  correspond  with 
the  insurrection,  and  are  its  insufficient  reason.  The 
rebellion  was  nipped  in  the  bud  by  the  destruction  of 
the  leaders  in  a  marvellous  manner,  and  the  right  of 
Aaron  to  be  the  head  of  the  priesthood  is  vindicated 
by  the  budding  of  his  rod  when  all  the  other  rods  of 
the  tribes  budded  not  (chap.  xvii.).  Then  follows,  in 
chapter  xviii.,  a  repetition  of  many  of  the  laws  re- 
specting the  priesthood,  with  additions  and  changes, 
and  a  special  charge  to  Aaron  respecting  his  official  du- 
ties and  perquisites  as  distinguished  from  the  Levites. 
These  laws  settled  the  questions  in   dispute   between 


ig4  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

the  Kohathites  and  the  priests,  Aaron  and  his  sons. 
In  verse  8,  the  "  anointing "  of  the  priests  is  spoken 
of,  referring  to  the  law  which  is  recorded  in  Leviticus 
viii.,  30.  It  is  announced  (chap,  xviii.,  12,  13)  that  the 
"first-fruits  "  should  be  given  to  Aaron,  which  is  new; 
verse  14,  every  devoted  thing  is  given  to  Aaron  (Levit- 
icus xxvii.,  28),  also  new ;  verse  13,  redeemed  firstlings 
are  to  be  Aaron's  (Exodus  xxxiv.,  9),  new. 

Chapter  xviii.,  20,  informs  us  that  Aaron  (the  priest- 
hood) should  "have  no  inheritance  in  the  land"  as  the 
Levites  did,  which  is  new ;  but  the  Levites  must  give  a 
tenth  part  of  their  tithe  to  the  priesthood  (verses  26,  28). 
In  this  manner,  all  future  dispute  about  the  income  of 
the  priests  is  avoided.  That  this  special  legislation 
should  have  taken  place  at  this  critical  time  is  strong 
evidence  of  the  substantial  accuracy  of  the  history. 
And  the  legislation  without  the  history  would  be  strong 
evidence  that  something  very  important  had  transpired 
in  the  camp  to  render  it  necessary. 

The  nineteenth  chapter  contains  a  minute  account  of 
the  preparation  and  use  of  the  water  of  purification  for 
any  one  who  had  been  made  unclean  by  contact  with  a 
dead  body ;  the  water  to  be  used  with  the  ashes  of  a 
red  heifer.  The  occasion  of  this  law  is  found  in  the 
plague,  recorded  in  the  sixteenth  chapter,  which  carried 
off  many  thousands  of  the  people.  The  whole  cere- 
mony was  a  most  vigorous  and  efficient  health  law,  and 
being  enacted  at  this  particular  time  corroborates  the 
history. 

All  these  laws  indicate  special  causes  for  their  en- 
actment, and  justify  the  belief  that  these  chapters  (xv. 
-xix.)   were    written   at   the    time    the    people    were 


EVIDENCE    FROM    CONTENTS   AND    STRUCTURE.      1 95 

encamped  near  Kadesh, —  the  xv.,  before  their  repulse, 
when  they  were  soon  expecting  to  enter  the  prom- 
ised land,  and  the  xvi.  -  xix.,  after  that  repulse.  For 
farther  evidence  of  the  truth  of  these  accounts,  the 
reader  is  referred  to  Undesigned  Coincidences^  where  the 
subject  of  Korah's  rebellion  is  more  fully  examined. 

V.  After  the  wanderings  in  the  wilderness  were  over 
and  the  people  were  encamped  near  Jordan,  we  find 
Moses  giving  more  directions  to  the  people,  some 
entirely  new,  some  modifications  of  previous  laws.  Let 
us  see  if  there  is  anything  in  these  directions  or  laws 
which  will  throw  light  upon  the  time  and  cause  of  their 
enactment,  or  anything  in  the  condition  of  the  people 
which  will  account  for  these  laws  being  given  at  this 
particular  time. 

In  Numbers  xxviii.,  i-8,  the  daily  offering  is  spoken 
of,  required  in  Exodus  xxix.,  38-42 ;  and  there  is  added 
to  the  original  law  the  following  amendment :  "  In  the 
holy  place  shalt  thou  cause  the  strong  wine  to  be 
poured."  Both  the  place  and  the  kind  of  wine  are 
new.  The  original  word  for  wine  is  translated  in 
Leviticus  x.,  9,  "  strong  drink."  If  it  means  "  old  wine," 
as  the  rabbins  say,  it  implies  that  they  were  soon  to  be 
settled  where  they  could  keep  wine  till  it  was  old, 
which  they  had  not  been  able  to  do  before.  And  the 
command  to  pour  it  "  in  the  holy  place  "  indicates  that 
they  might  be  tempted  when  settled  in  the  land,  by 
remoteness,  to  pour  it  elsewhere.  Numbers  xxviii.,  4, 
and  Exodus  xxix.,  39,  are  in  the  same  words,  showing 
that  the  writer  of  Numbers  was  familiar  with  the  old 
law. 

Numbers  xxxviii.,  9,  10.    The  Sabbath-day  offering  of 


196  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

two  lambs  is  new,  and  implies  that  they  would  be  so 
situated  that  their  flocks  would  permit  such  a  draft  on 
them,  and  also  distinguish  that  day  from  other  days. 

Numbers  xxix.,  11-15.  These  new-moon  offerings 
are  7iew,  and  also  imply  an  increase  of  their  herds  and 
flocks  and  vintage  and  olive-trees  and  grain,  to  justify 
another  festival  of  their  own  nation  at  the  time  of  the 
idolatrous  festival  of  other  nations,  and  thus  secure 
them  from  joining  their  neighbors  in  idolatrous  rites. 

In  chapter  xxviii.,  16-25,  the  proper  manner  of  keep- 
ing the  passover  is  described.  In  Leviticus  xxiii.,  5-8, 
no  particulars  are  given.  Verses  19-23  in  Numbers 
are  new.  The  animals,  bullocks,  and  lambs  to  be 
offered  in  sacrifice  on  each  of  the  seven  days  are 
specified :  fourteen  bullocks,  forty-nine  lambs,  and  seven 
goats  in  all.  This  free  use  of  animals  certainly  indicates 
a  larger  supply  at  hand  than  they  had  previously  had. 

Numbers  xxviii.,  26-31.  The  description  of  "the 
day  of  first-fruits "  differs  in  no  important  particular 
from  that  in  Leviticus  xxiii.,  19-21.  There  is  no 
obvious  reason  why  it  should  have  been  inserted  here, 
except  that  it  was  intimately  connected  with  the  new 
moon  and  passover. 

Numbers  xxix.,  1-6,  prescribes  the  sacrifices  which 
are  to  be  offered  at  the  feast  of  trumpets,  which  is  not 
done  in  Leviticus  xxiii.,  24,  25.  This  again  shows 
clearly  that  flocks  and  herds  would  be  more  numerous, 
as  they  certainly  would  be  as  soon  as  they  had  settled 
in  the  promised  land. 

Numbers  xxix.,  7-1 1,  describes  the  services  of  the 
holy  convocation  on  the  great  day  of  atonement,  and 
prescribes  the  sacrifices  which  must  be  offered,  of 
which  nothing  is  said  in  Leviticus  xxiii.,  26-32. 


EVIDENCE   FROM   CONTENTS   AND   STRUCTURE.        197 

Numbers  xxix.,  12-34,  The  holy  convocation  of 
the  feast  of  tabernacles  and  the  feast  itself  are  fully 
described  day  by  day ;  but  in  Leviticus  xxxiii.,  34- 44, 
only  briefly.  Numbers  prescribes  the  sacrifices  for 
each  day,  but  says  nothing  about  booths.  Leviticus 
speaks  of  the  booths,  but  does  not  specify  the  sacrifices 
or  special  ceremonies.  The  animals  ordered  for  sacri- 
fice during  this  greatest  of  festivals  are  seventy-one 
bullocks,  fifteen  rams,  ninety-nine  lambs,  and  seven, 
goats.  This  number  of  animals  indicates  a  near  ap- 
proach to  more  prosperous  conditions  than  they  were 
enjoying. 

Numbers  xxix.,  35-40.  We  read  in  this  section  of 
the  "solemn  assembly"  on  the  eighth  day  of  the  feast 
of  the  tabernacles,  which  is  barely  alluded  to  in  Leviti- 
cus xxiii.,  36.  This  shows  clearly  that  this  great  feast, 
as  well  as  the  others,  was  not  only  rarely  kept,  but  that 
they  must  have  been  destitute,  when  kept,  of  what 
gave  them  their  hold  upon  the  people  in  the  land  of 
promise.  Nor  is  it  probable  that  when  they  were 
settled  in  the  promised  land  they  were  able  to  keep 
these  great  festivals,  or  did  keep  them,  according  to 
the  ideal  as  prescribed  in  these  laws.  They  all  imply 
an  immediate  possession  of  their  inheritance.  And  this 
necessary  implication  of  the  laws  in  themselves  accords 
with  the  history  and  authenticates  it. 

Numbers  xxx.  It  is  evident  from  this  chapter  that 
the  judges  had  had  serious  perplexity  in  administering 
the  law  of  vows  as  recorded  in  the  twenty-seventh  chap- 
ter of  Leviticus ;  and  some  general  principles  to  aid 
the  judges  are  laid  down  in  this  chapter,  (i)  Every 
man  must  do  according  to  all  that  proceedeth  out  of 
his  mouth ;  but  (2)  if  a  woman  vowed,  there  were  con- 


198  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

ditions  of  fulfilment  depending  on  her  father's  hearing 
her;  if  (3)  she  was  married  or  betrothed,  there  were 
conditions  of  fulfilment  depending  upon  her  husband 
or  betrothed  hearing  her ;  if  (4)  she  was  a  widow  or 
divorced,  all  shall  stand  ;  if  (5)  she  is  a  wife  in  her 
husband's  house,  the  conditions  of  fulfilment  will  vary- 
as  he  did  or  did  not  hear  her  vow. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  chapter  to  indicate  when  it 
was  written ;  but  as  vows  were  often,  if  not  always  con- 
nected with  sacrifices,  it  is  very  probable  that  the  full 
treatment  of  that  subject  in  connection  with  these  great 
feasts  may  have  opened  this  question  of  the  obligation 
of  vows,  especially  when  the  vow  must  be  paid  by  the 
husband  or  guardian  of  the  person  making  the  vow. 

Taking  all  these  new  laws  and  amendments  of  old 
laws  into  the  account,  it  is  quite  impossible  to  escape 
the  conclusion  that  they  were  written  when  the  history 
affirms  that  they  were  written,  and  when  the  contents 
of  the  laws  themselves  require  them  to  have  been 
written.  This  origin  of  these  laws,  or  the  most  skilful 
and  criminal  forgery,  is  the  only  possible  conclusion  of 
the  whole  matter. 

SECTION  III.       UNDESIGNED  COINCIDENCES. 

I  wish  now  to  call  attention  to  another  class  of  phe- 
nomena denoting  the  time  in  which  the  Pentateuch 
was  composed.  I  refer  to  Undesigned  Coincidences, — 
correspondences  so  slight  yet  so  peculiar  as  to  show 
that  an  eye-witness  recorded  the  events  to  which  they 
relate.* 

♦About  thirty  years  ago,  I  read  a  small  work  by  Blunt  on  this  subject.  As  all 
my  references  to  that  work  are  lost,  I  am  unable  to  tell  for  how  many  of  these 
coincidences  I  am  indebted  to  him,  and  can  make  only  this  general  acknowledg- 
ment. 


UNDESIGNED   COINCIDENCE:?.  1 99 

(i)  An  instance  of  this  kind  is  the  rate  of  travelling 
attributed  to  the  people  on  their  departure  from  Egypt. 
In  about  six  or  eight  days,  we  find  that  they  had 
marched  as  far  as  Marah,  which  was  two-thirds  of  the 
way  to  Mt.  Sinai  from  Rameses.  But  they  did  not 
reach  Sinai  under  forty-five  days.  What  more  natural 
than  that  they  should  travel  thus  rapidly  the  first  part 
of  the  way  to  escape  the  enemy,  and  then  slacken  their 
speed  to  give  repose  to  the  feeble  and  time  for  the 
stragglers  to  come  up  ?  Besides,  it  will  be  found  upon 
examination  that  they  fled  much  more  rapidly  from 
Rameses  till  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  than  they  did 
afterwards.  This  is  entirely  natural ;  and,  when  we 
reflect  that  the  writer  has  only  incidentally  given  us  a 
clew  to  discover  that  such  was  the  fact,  it  forces  on  us 
the  conviction  that  he  was  one  of  the  company.* 

(2)  The  original  direction  respecting  the  order  of 
marching  was  changed  for  the  greater  convenience  of 
those  who  bore  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture.  It  is 
distinctly  stated  in  the  general  orders,  as  recorded  in 
Numbers  ii.,  that  after  six  tribes  have  moved  forvv^ard, 

*  The  peculiar  and  apparently  unreasonable  route  which  Moses  took  in  leaving 
Egypt,  leading  the  people  into  a  cul  de  sac, —  the  sea  on  the  one  hand  and  the 
mountains  on  the  other,  and  Pharaoh  behind  them, —  is  attributed  by  the  pious 
historian,  writing  perhaps  half  a  century  afterward,  to  the  special  direction  of 
Jehovah  to  Moses  in  order  probably  that  He  mi^ht  show  forth  His  power  to  the 
fleeing  nation,  and  give  thera  courage  to  persist  in  the  great  undertaking  of  escap- 
ing from  bondage  and  returning  to  the  land  of  their  remote  ancestors.  This  may 
be  so.  But  I  am  inclined  to  another,  and  to  me  more  probable  as  it  is  a  more 
reasonable,  explanation  of  this  remarkable  mistake  of  Moses,  as  it  appears  to  us 
without  the  historian's  theory  or  knowledge  of  its  cause.  Let  the  reader  bear  in 
mind  that  God  is  spoken  of  by  this  very  pious  writer  as  directing  everythii  g  and 
causing  everything,  and  that  Moses  is  scarcely  a  free  agent  in  anything.  Now,  I 
submit  as  most  probable  that,  when  Pharaoh  learned  that  the  people  had  fled,  he 
changed  his  mind  and  determined  to  intercept  their  march.  He  accordingly 
pursued  with  his  horsemen  and  chariots,  and  succeeded  in  outflanking  them  and 


200  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

when  they  decamp,  then  the  Levites  shall  set  forward 
with  the  tabernacle.  But  in  the  tenth  chapter,  where 
we  have  an  account  of  their  setting  out  on  their  march, 
we  read  that,  after  three  tribes  had  set  forward,  the 
tabernacle  was  taken  down,  and  the  sons  of  Gershon 
and  the  sons  of  Merari  set  forward  bearing  the  taber- 
nacle. Then  came  three  tribes  more,  and  then  the 
Kohathites  set  forward  bearing  the  sanctuary,  the  holy 
utensils,  the  altars,  and  the  ark.  And  a  good  reason 
appears  why  this  change  was  made.  The  tabernacle 
would  be  set  up  ready  to  receive  the  sacred  things  as 
soon  as  those  who  bore  them  should  arrive  upon  the 
ground  of  re-encampment. 

(3)  In  the  fourth  chapter,  we  read  that  a  division 
was  made  of  the  different  parts  of  the  tabernacle  be- 
tween the  sons  of  Gershon,  Merari,  and  Kohath.  The 
sons  of  Gershon  were  to  bear  the  coverings  of  the  tab- 
ernacle ;  the  sons  of  Merari  were  to  bear  the  pillars  and 
boards  and  sockets ;  the  sons  of  Kohath  were  to  bear 
the  sacred  vessels,  the  altars,  and  the  ark.  Now,  if  we 
turn  to  the  seventh  chapter,  we  read  of  the  trains  and 

getting  in  their  front  before  they  had  reached  the  north-western  point  of  the  sea. 
Moses  had  his  choice  cither  to  fight  Pharaoh,  now  in  front  of  him,  or  flee  as 
well  as  he  could  down  the  country  by  the  side  of  the  sea.  He  chose  the  latter 
alternative,  and  by  removing  his  marching  signal  to  the  rear,  and  deceiving 
Pharaoh  as  to  his  true  position,  he  gained  time,  by  taking  advantage  of  the 
darkness  and  of  a  very  low  stage  of  the  water,  to  get  the  people  over  to  the  o^her 
side.  When  the  day  dawned,  Pharaoh  attempted  to  cross  after  them,  but  the 
muddy  bottom  and  the  return  of  deep  water  prevented  him,  and  a  large  number 
of  his  army  perished  in  the  attempt.  Moses  turned  down  by  the  sea  because  he 
was  compelled  to  by  the  position  of  the  Egyptians ;  and  after  their  wonderful 
escape  the  people  saw  in  it  the  guidance  of  their  God  ;  and  the  devout  historian 
of  another  generation  introduces  Jehovah  as  the  counsellor  and  guide  of  Moses 
in  the  whole  transaction.  Nothing  could  be  more  natural.  But  the  reader  of  to- 
day must  recognize  in  his  study  of  these  early  records  this  pervading  language  of 
piety,  an  1  interpret  them  accordingly.  I  am  not  satisfied  with  Brugsch's  hypo- 
thesis respecting  the  route  of  the  escaping  Israelites. 


UNDESIGNED   COINCIDENCES.  20I 

wagons  which  were  provided  some  days  after  to  carry 
the  tabernacle.  Without  giving  the  reason  for  the  un- 
equal distribution,  two  wagons  and  four  oxen  were  given 
to  the  sons  of  Gershon,  and  four  wagons  arid  eight  oxen 
to  the  sons  of  Merari,  This  difference  in  capacity  for 
carrying  freight  corresponds  to  the  difference  in  the 
materials  which  the  two  parties  were  to  carry,  Merari 
having  much  the  heavier  portion,  as  is  found  by  look- 
ing back  four  chapters,  where  the  distribution  of  mate- 
rials is  madeu  It  is  hardly  credible  that  a  later  his- 
torian would  have  separated  these  items  in  this  way, 
and  yet  have,  thus  incidentally,  preserved  the  corre- 
spondence between  the  parts. 

(4)  The  omission  of  the  mention  of  Simeon  in  the 
blessings  which  Moses  pronounced  upon  the  tribes,  as 
recorded  in  Deuteronomy  xxxiii.,  has  given  rise  to  no 
little  speculation.  If  we  turn  back  to  the  twenty-fifth 
chapter  of  Numbers,  a  reason  will  be  found  for  this 
omission  which  is  entirely  satisfactory.  We  read  in 
the  chapter  referred  to  that  a  terrible  plague  smote  the 
camp  of  Israel  on  account  of  the  introduction  of  a  Mid- 
ianitish  woman  into  the  camp  under  very  offensive  cir- 
cumstances. Twenty  thousand  died  of  the  plague  be- 
fore it  was  stayed.  This  terrible  calamity,  which  hap- 
pened but  a  short  time  before  Moses  pronounced  his 
blessings  on  the  tribes,  was  caused  by  the  act  of  "Ziniri, 
the  son  of  Salu,  a  prince  of  the  chief  house  of  the  Simeo7i- 
itesT  It  appears  also  that  the  plague  was  confined  to 
the  tribe  of  Simeon  ;  for  we  find  in  the  census,  taken 
but  a  short  time  after,  that  this  tribe  had  diminished 
thirty-seven  thousand.  It  is  not  at  all  wonderful,  there- 
fore, that  Moses  should  omit  to  bless  such  a  tribe,  when 


202  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

their  diminished  numbers  were  a  standing  witness  of 
God's  displeasure,  and  when  the  plague,  which  had  so 
devastated  their  part  of  the  camp,  had  but  just  been 
stayed,  and  was  fresh  in  the  memory  of  all.  Nor  is  this 
the  conclusion  of  the  matter.  We  find  that,  when  the 
tribe  took  possession  of  the  promised  land,  Simeon  was 
made  a  barrier  both  of  Egypt  and  the  Philistines,  so 
that  he  must  first  suffer  in  case  of  attack  from  that 
quarter.  These  facts,  so  purely  incidental  in  the  man- 
ner of  their  relation,  scattered  through  different  chap- 
ters, so  perfectly  accounting  for  other  facts,  remarkable 
in  their  character  yet  equally  incidentally  related,  with- 
out any  reasons  given  for  such  strange  phenomena,  bear 
with  no  little  weight  in  the  scale  of  the  authenticity  and 
age  of  these  books.  That  they  were  not  introduced 
into  the  Pentateuch  for  the  purpose  of  supplying  the 
material  for  this  argument  to  future  investigators  of  the 
age  of  the  work  is  evident  enough.  The  supposition 
is  absurd. 

(5)  The  account  of  the  visit  of  Balaam  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cursing  Israel  demands  notice.  After  the  in- 
effectual attempts  made  by  Balak,  King  of  Moab,  to 
induce  Balaam  to  curse  Israel,  and  after  Balaam  had 
obtained  all  the  gifts  which  he  was  able  to  wring  from 
the  frightened  king,  we  read,  Numbers  xxiv.,  25,  that 
"Balaam  rose  up  and  went  and  returned  to  his  place." 
"  His  place,"  we  find  in  chapter  xxii.,  5,  to  be  "Pethor," 
a  city  of  Mesopotamia,  on  the  Euphrates.  But  we  are 
surprised  when  we  read  in  chapter  xxxi.,  8,  where  the 
chiefs  of  Midian  are  named  who  had  been  slain  in  bat- 
tle, to  find  that  "  Balaam  also,  the  son  of  Beor,"  was 
slain  by  the  sword.     How  came   he  here,  among  the 


UNDESIGNED   COINCIDENCES.  203 

Midianites?  He  had  left  Balak,  King  of  Moab,  "to 
return  home."  If  we  turn  back  to  the  twenty-second 
chapter,  we  find  that  the  "  elders  of  Midian  "  went  with 
the  elders  of  Moab,  with  the  "  rewards  of  divination  in 
their  hand,"  to  invite  Balaam  to  come  and  "curse 
Israel."  The  elders  of  Midian  are  no  more  mentioned 
in  the  history  ;  yet  in  this  brief  line  we  find  the  cause  of 
Balaam's  taking  Midian  in  his  way,  on  his  return  home. 
More  gifts  he  would  obtain,  if  possible,  before  he  left 
the  country.  He  was  killed  while  he  stopped  among 
that  people  to  finish  the  object  for  which  he  had  made 
his  journey  from  the  East.  The  presence  of  the  his- 
torian of  these  facts  on  the  spot  where  they  transpired 
seems  certain. 

(6)  In  the  account  of  the  rebellion  and  destruction 
of  Korah  and  his  company  there  are  some  very  strik- 
ing indications  of  the  writer's  presence  at  the  time. 
The  leaders  of  the  rebels,  as  we  learn  from  Numbers 
xvi.,  I,  were  "  Korah,  the  son  of  Izhar,  the  son  of 
Kohath,  the  son  of  Levi ;  and  Dathan  and  Abiram,  the 
sons  of  Eliab ;  and  On,  the  son  of  Peleth,  sons  of  Reu- 
benP  How  came  it  to  pass  that  the  tribe  of  Reuben,  or 
a  part  of  it,  and  the  Kohathites  should  be  engaged  in 
this  rebellion?  If  we  look  back  thirteen  chapters  to 
chapter  iii.,  29,  we  shall  find  that  in  recording  the  loca- 
tion of  the  Levites  in  the  camp,  the  writer  states  that 
"the  families  of  the  sons  of  Kohath  shall  pitch  on  the 
side  of  the  tabernacle  southward."  And  still  further 
back,  in  chapter  ii.,  10,  we  read  that  "on  the  south  side 
shall  be  the  standard  of  the  camp  of  Reuben."  At  the 
distance  of  thirteen  chapters,  and  separated  from  each 
other  by  one  chapter,  we  find  statements  showing  that 


204  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

the  tribe  of  Reuben  and  the  Kohathites  were  on  the 
same  side  of  the  camp,  and  in  close  proximity.  It 
would  be  very  easy  for  them,  therefore,  to  confer  to- 
gether as  they  are  represented  as  doing. 

(7)  Again,  as  we  read  the  account  of  the  punishment 
inflicted  on  the  rebels,  as  recorded  in  the  sixteenth 
chapter,  we  seem  to  see  the  earth  open,  and  Korah, 
Dathan,  and  Abiram,  and  "  their  sons  and  their  wives 
and  their  little  children,"  all  swallowed  up  alive.  What, 
then,  is  our  surprise,  when  we  read,  ten  chapters  later, 
in  the  twenty-sixth  chapter,  which  contains  a  record  of 
events  which  transpired  thirty-six  years  afterwards,  that 
"the  children  of  Korah  died  not."  We  turn  back  to 
re-examine  the  sixteenth  chapter,  to  see  if  we  were  mis- 
taken. We  there  find  that  the  people  are  commanded 
to  "depart  from  the  tents  of  those  wicked  men."  "So 
they  gat  up  from  the  tabernacle  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and 
Abiram,  on  every  side."  This  tabernacle  appears  to 
have  been  occupied  in  common  by  the  rebels  as  their 
place  of  meeting  with  their  associates.  And  then  we 
read  that  "  Dathan  and  Abiram  came  out  and  stood  in 
the  door  of  their  tents,  and  their  wives  and  their  sons 
and  their  little  ones."  This  public  tent  of  meeting,  it 
seems,  stood  near  the  tents  of  these  two  men,  who  were 
Reubenites,  and  not  near  the  tent  of  Korah,  who  was 
a  Levite ;  so  that  when  "  the  earth  opened  her  mouth 
and  swallowed  them  up,  and  their  houses  [tents]  and 
ail  the  men  [that  is,  the  rebels]  that  appertained  to 
Korah,  and  all  their  goods,"  the  children  of  Korah, 
who  were  in  the  family  tent  among  the  Levites,  were 
not  destroyed.  Thus  the  apparent  contradiction  is  rec- 
onciled in  such  a  manner  as  to  indicate  that  an  eye-wit- 


UNDESIGNED   COINCIDENCES.  205 

ness  was  the  historian.  I  cannot  forbear  recalling  the 
attention  of  the  reader  to  another  feature  of  this  trans- 
action. Korah,  the  leader  of  this  rebellion,  was  son  of 
Izhar,  the  second  son  of  Kohath,  Amram,  the  father  of 
Moses  and  Aaron,  being  the  first.  But  the  chief  oi  the 
Kohathites  was  Elzaphan,  the  son  of  Uzziel,  the  fourth 
son  of  Kohath.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  envious 
feelings  should  arise,  on  his  part,  against  the  hardship 
of  the  younger  branch  of  the  family.  The  posterity  of 
Reuben,  the  eldest  son  of  Jacob,  would  likewise  be  not 
a  little  dissatisfied  that  Judah,  a  younger  brother, 
should  be  placed  at  the  head  of  all  the  tribes. 

(8)  In  the  tenth  chapter  of  Leviticus,  we  read  that 
"Nadab  and  Abihu,  the  sons  of  Aaron,  took  either  of 
them  his  censer,  and  put  fire  therein,  and  put  incense 
thereon,  and  offered  strange  fire  before  the  Lord,"  For 
this  act,  they  were  smitten  dead  by  fire  "from  the  Lord." 
And  "  Mishael  and  Elzaphan,  the  sons  of  Uzziel,  the 
uncle  of  Aaron,"  carried  their  dead  bodies  "from  before 
the  sanctuary  out  of  the  camp."  No  cause  for  this 
high-handed  act  of  these  two  sons  of  Aaron  is  given  by 
the  writer;  but  he  immediately  after  records  a  new  law: 
"  Do  not  drink  wine  nor  strong  drink,  thou  [Aaron]  nor 
thy  sons  with  thee,  when  ye  go  into  the  tabernacle  of 
the  congregation,  lest  ye  die.  .  .  .  And  that  ye  may  put  a 
difference  between  holy  and  unholy,  and  between  clean 
and  unclean."  The  cause  of  this  new  enactment  was, 
most  obviously,  the  sacrilegious  act  of  Aaron's  sons, 
committed  when  they  were  intoxicated,  and  did  not  put 
a  difference  between  "holy  and  unholy,  and  between 
clean  and  unclean."  Such  gross  outrages  must  not  be 
repeated,  and  a  law  is  enacted  to  prevent  their  recur- 


2o6  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

rence.  Here  we  not  only  have  a  new  law  to  meet  an 
emergenc)',  but  we  also  have  a  law  based  upon  the 
probable  condition  of  those  two  priests,  when  the  fact 
of  their  being  intoxicated  is  not  mentioned. 

(9)  A  farther  coincidence  demands  notice  in  this 
connection.  This  act  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  took  place 
on  the  eighth  day  after  the  tabernacle  was  erected ;  for 
in  Exodus  xl.,  2,  we  read  that  the  "  tabernacle  of  the 
tent  of  the  congregation "  was  to  be  set  up  on  "  the 
first  day  of  the  first  month."  In  the  thirteenth  verse, 
we  read  that  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  to  be  anointed 
and  clothed  in  their  holy  garments  for  their  sacred 
office.  After  seven  chapters  in  Leviticus,  giving  direc- 
tions about  particular  sacrifices  which  were  to  be 
offered  in  the  tabernacle,  we  find  in  the  eighth  and 
ninth  chapters  a  specific  account  of  the  consecration 
of  Aaron  and  his  sons  which  continued  seven  days 
(chap,  viii.,  33).  On  the  eighth  day  (chap,  ix,,  i), 
new  ceremonies  were  performed  by  these  priests,  their 
seven  days  of  confinement  and  seclusion  being  over; 
and  it  is  on  this  eighth  day  that  these  sons  of  Aaron, 
once  more  associating  with  their  friends,  indulged 
probably  so  freely  in  the  use  of  the  cup  as  to  profane 
the  Lord  by  attempting  to  serve  in  their  holy  office 
while  intoxicated.  How  natural  that  men  who  had 
been  accustomed  to  the  moderate  social  glass  should 
indulge  thus  freely  after  such  a  week  of  seclusion  ! 
Yet  of  all  this  series  of  causes  the  writer  says  not  a 
word  j  nor  is  there  the  remotest  ground  for  the  sup- 
position that  he  had  arranged  these  incidents  to  fur- 
nish us  with  this  argument  for  the  age  of  his  writing. 
That  the  narrator  was  on  the  spot  and  related  what  he 
saw  is  too  obvious  to  require  comment. 


UNDESIGNED   COINCIDENCES.  207 

(10)  Nor  have  we  yet  done  with  this  account.  These 
dead  bodies  were  carried  "  out  of  the  camp  "  just  six 
days  before  the  passover.  Turning  forward  now  twen- 
ty-five  chapters,  which  are  filled  with  the  transactions 
of  these  six  days,  to  the  ninth  chapter  of  Numbers, 
we  come  to  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month,  on 
which  the  passover  was  to  be  kept.  We  here  find  an 
account  of  its  observance;  and  we  read  "there  were 
certain  men  who  were  defiled  by  the  dead  body  of  a  man, 
so  that  they  could  not  keep  the  passover  on  that  day ; 
and  they  came  before  Moses  and  Aaron,"  and  said 
that  they  were  defiled  and  were  thus  prevented  from 
offering  their  offering  unto  the  Lord.  "  Seven  days," 
which  were  necessary  for  the  purification  of  those  who 
were  unclean  by  contact  with  a  dead  body,  had  not 
transpired  since  Mishael  and  Elzaphan  had  carried  out 
their  kinsmen's  dead  bodies,  and  hence  they  could  not 
eat  of  the  passover  or  offer  the  sacrifice.  It  is  proba- 
ble that  these  were  the  men  who  came  to  Moses,  as 
above  related ;  for  such  a  complaint  would  be  likely 
to  originate  in  the  first  instance  among  the  chief  men, 
and  these  men  were  of  that  class.  The  phrase,  "  the 
dead  body  of  a  man,"  being  the  legal  term  by  which 
ritual  uncleanness  from  contact  with  the  dead  is 
expressed,  by  no  means  shows,  or  implies,  that  there 
was  but  otie  dead  body.  Three  implied  conditions  are 
found  in  this  narration,  two  of  them  connected  with 
other  facts  related  ten  and  twenty  chapters  distant, 
and  so  related  as  to  show  clearly  that  the  writer  of 
these  accounts  must  have  been  an  eye  witness  of  what 
he  relates,  or  at  least  a  contemporary  of  the  events, 
and  narrating  what  he  well  knew  was  transpiring.     Let 


2o8  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

these  ten  illustrations  of  "undesigned  coincidences" 
suffice. 

SECTION  IV.       EVIDENCE  FROM   MINUTENESS    OF   DETAILS. 

Another  characteristic  of  these  books,  showing  their 
journal-like  character,  and  indicating  a  writer  in  the 
camp  of  Israel,  is  found  in  the  minuteness  of  the  details 
in  many  parts  of  the  narrative,  and  their  repetition 
under  such  circumstances  as  to  exculpate  any  later 
writer  from  being  the  author  of  such  useless  definite- 
ness  and  wearisome  repetitions ;  and  yet  these  same 
circumstances  demanded  of  the  desert-journalist  just 
such  a  minuteness  and  repetition.  These  phenomena 
have  a  twofold  power  :  they  equally  danarid  an  ancient, 
and  forbid  a  modern,  writer.  Let  us  now  examine 
some  of  them. 

(i)  In  the  census  of  the  people,  an  account  of  which 
is  contained  in  the  first  chapter  of  Numbers,  there  is  an 
illustration  of  the  recording,  at  the  time,  of  work  done, 
or  of  the  journal-like  character  of  the  book.  First,  we 
have  the  names,  not  only  of  the  superintendents  of  the 
census  of  each  tribe,  but  also  the  names  of  their  fathers, 
which  it  is  not  probable  would  have  been  given  by  a 
writer  in  the  time  of  Ezra.  Then  we  have  repeated  be- 
fore the  round  number  of  each  tribe  the  formula  under 
which  the  census  was  taken,  making  a  repetition  of  the 
same  words  twelve  times,  which  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
an  historian  a  thousand  or  eight  hundred  years  later 
would  have  done  \  but  it  is  very  probable  it  would  be 
done,  when  the  separate  papers  of  enrolment  were 
passed  in  and  recorded  or  filed.  Seven  lines  of  the 
nine   v;hich   constituted  the  return  of   each  tribe  are, 


EVIDENCE    FROM    MINUTENESS   OF    DETAILS.        209 

word  for  word,  the  same.  A  later  historian  of  the 
transaction,  with  these  returns  before  him,  would,  at 
the  most,  have  written  the  heading  but  once ;  and  then, 
after  this  description  of  the  persons  enrolled,  he  would 
have  named  the  tribes  and  their  number  in  order.  Of 
all  this,  Josephus  only  says  (chap,  viii.,  2),  "The  num- 
ber of  the  offerers  [of  the  half-shekels,  as  represented 
by  this  census]  was  six  hundred  and  five  thousand  five 
hundred  and  fifty." 

(2)  Another  illustration  of  the  time  and  place  of  writ- 
ing this  Book  of  Numbers  is  contained  in  the  second 
chapter,  in  which  the  order  of  the  encampment  is  speci- 
fied with  great  minuteness.  The  names  of  the  tribes 
are  given,  and  also  the  name  of  the  "captain"  of  the 
tribe  is  given,  and,  yet  more,  the  name  of  the  captain's 
father,  and  also  the  number  in  the  tribe  according  to 
the  census,  and,  finally,  the  whole  number  in  each  of 
the  four  divisions  which  were  encamped  on  the  four 
sides  of  the  tabernacle,  the  account  filling  thirty-two 
verses  of  the  chapter.  All  this  would  be  very  necessary 
in  the  order  for  arranging  the  camp  at  first ;  but  what 
historian  in  the  time  of  Ezra  would  have  given  an  ac- 
count of  the  camp  in  this  manner  ?  Josephus  illustrates 
this  admirably  (chap,  xii.,  5) :  "  When  they  set  up  the 
tabernacle,  they  received  it  into  the  m.idst  of  their  camp, 
three  of  the  tribes  pitching  their  tents  on  each  side  of 
it."  And  all  that  is  said  by  Josephus  respecting  the 
elaborate  arrangement  in  the  next  chapter  —  abridged 
in  the  paragraph  below  —  is  that  "the  priests  had  the 
first  place  about  the  tabernacle ;  then  the  Levites." 

(3)  Then,  in  the  third  chapter,  there  is  a  record  of 
the  distribution  of  the  material  of  the  tabernacle  and 


2IO  A   STUDY  OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

its  furniture  among  the  priests  and  Levites,  whose  order 
of  encampment  is  minutely  specified  inside  the  other 
tribes  and  around  the  tabernacle,  which  was  their 
special  charge.  The  sons  of  Gershon  shall  have  charge 
"of  the  covering  of  the  tent  and  the  hanging  for  the 
door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation  aiid  the 
hangings  of  the  court  and  the  curtain  for  the  door  of 
the  court .  .  .  and  the  cords  of  it."  And  the  charge  of 
Kohath  "  shall  be  the  ark  and  the  table  and  the  candle- 
stick and  the  altars  and  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary 
and  the  hanging  and  all  the  service  thereof."  "  And 
the  charge  of  the  sons  of  Merari  shall  be  the  boards 
of  the  tabernacle,  and  the  bars  thereof,  and  the  pillars 
thereof,  and  the  sockets  thereof,  and  all  the  vessels 
thereof,  .  .  .  and  the  pillars  of  the  court  round  about, 
and  their  sockets  and  their  pins  and  their  cords."  This 
has  certainly  the  air  of  the  camp  and  the  desert  and  the 
time  of  the  great  migration. 

(4)  But  there  is  yet  more  of  this,  and  more  even,  if 
possible,  to  the  purpose.  How  shall  that  portion  of  the 
tabernacle  furniture  which  the  sons  of  Kohath  are  to 
carry,  and  which  was  holy,  and  which  none  but  a  priest 
could  handle  on  pain  of  death,  be  approached,  pre- 
pared, and  borne?  In  the  fourth  chapter,  from  the 
fourth  to  the  tenth  verses,  we  have  a  m.inute  description 
of  the  manner  in  which  Aaron  and  his  sons  "shall  cover 
the  ark  of  testimony  with  the  covering  veil,  and  shall 
put  thereon  the  covering  of  badgers'  skins,  and  shall 
spread  over  it  a  cloth  wholly  of  blue,  and  shall  put  in 
the  staves  thereof,"  by  which  it  is  to  be  carried.  "And 
upon  the  table  of  shew  bread  they  shall  spread  a  cloth 
of  blue  and  put  thereon  the  dishes,  and  the  spoons,  and 


EVIDENCE   FROM   MINUTENESS   OF   DETAILS.        211 

the  bowls  and  covers,  .  .  .  and  they  shall  spread  upon 
them  a  cloth  of  scarlet,  and  cover  the  same  with  a  cov- 
ering of  badgers'  skins,  and  shall  put  in  the  staves 
thereof."  And  the  "candlestick,  and  his  lamps,  and 
his  tongs,  and  his  snuff  dishes,  and  all  the  oil  vessels 
thereof,"  are  to  be  covered  with  "a  cloth  of  blue,"  and 
to  be  put  into  "  a  covering  of  badgers'  skins  and  put 
upon  a  bar";  "and  upon  the  golden  altar  they  shall 
spread  a  cloth  of  blue  and  cover  it  with  a  covering  of 
badgers'  skins,"  "and  they  shall  take  all  the  instru- 
ments of  ministry  .  .  .  and  put  them  in  a  cloth  of  blue, 
and  cover  them  with  a  covering  of  badgers'  skins,  and 
shall  put  them  on  a  bar ;  and  they  shall  take  away  the 
ashes  from  the  altar,  and  spread  a  purple  cloth  thereon ; 
and  they  shall  put  upon  it  all  the  vessels  thereof,  where- 
with they  minister  about  it,  even  the  censers,  the  flesh- 
hooks  and  the  shovels  and  the  basins,  all  the  vessels 
of  the  altar,  and  they  shall  spread  over  it  a  covering  of 
badgers'  skins,  and  put  to  the  staves  of  it " ;  then,  and 
not  till  then,  the  sons  of  Kohath  shall  come  to  bear 
them.  Then  the  service  of  the  sons  of  Gershon  and 
Merari  is  to  be  arranged  by  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  a 
census  of  these  families  is  to  be  taken  of  all  males  from 
thirty  to  fifty  years  old,  that  proper  relays  and  reliefs 
might  be  made  while  marching  and  in  camp. 

What  I  affirm  is  that  all  this  minute  direction  and 
organization  of  the  Levites  and  priests  indicates,  de- 
ma7ids  for  its  justification,  its  cause,  the  precise  time, 
and  place,  and  circumstances  which  the  history  de- 
scribes ;  and  that  no  historian  of  the  nation  in  the 
time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  would  have  written  in  this 
manner.     I  pass  by  the  fact  that  the  "  shittim  wood," 


212  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

of  which  the  wood-work  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  furni- 
ture was  made,  was  abundant  about  Mount  Sinai  and 
rare  in  Canaan,  and  that  the  "badgers'  skins"  were 
most  probably  the  skins  of  a  fish  which  abounded  in 
the  Red  Sea,  as  I  do  not  wish  to  introduce  anything  as 
fact  into  this  Study  which  may  be  challenged. 

(5)  But  I  have  not  done.  I  must  challenge  the 
reader's  patience  still  further.  I  cite  as  a  striking 
proof  of  the  authenticity  and  age  of  the  Pentateuch 
the  minute  account  of  the  offerings  made  by  the  princes 
of  Israel  to  the  tabernacle  during  the  period  of  its 
dedication.  It  is  contained  in  the  seventh  chapter  of 
Numbers,  commencing  with  the  twelfth  verse.  Each 
prince  brought  his  offering  on  a  day  by  himself,  so  that 
on  twelve  different  days  we  have  the  entry  made  by  the 
scribe  in  the  journal  of  the  offering.  Each  prince 
offered  the  same  gifts.  The  wording  of  the  entry  is  in 
each  case  the  same.  Leave  a  blank  in  either  of  the 
entries  for  the  names  of  the  princes,  and  they  will  read 
alike.  I  will  give  the  first  entry :  "  And  he  that  offered 
his  offering  the  first  day  was  Nahshon,  the  son  of 
Amminadab,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah ;  and  his  offering 
was  one  silver  charger,  the  weight  thereof  was  a  hun- 
dred and  thirty  shekels,  one  silver  bowl  of  seventy 
shekels,  after  the  shekel  of  the  sanctuary  ;  both  of  them 
were  full  of  fine  flour  mingled  with  oil  for  a  meat-offer- 
ing ;  one  spoon  of  ten  shekels  of  gold  full  of  incense ; 
one  young  bullock,  one  ram,  one  lamb  of  the  first  year, 
for  a  burnt-offering ;  one  kid  of  the  goats  for  a  sin- 
offering;  and  for  a  sacrifice  of  peace-offerings,  two 
oxen,  five  rams,  five  he-goats,  live  lambs  of  the  first 
year.  This  was  the  offering  of  Nahshon,  the  son  of 
Amminadab." 


EVIDENCE    FROM    MINUTENESS   OF    DETAILS.         213 

Now,  instead  of  simply  saying  that  each  of  the 
other  princes  of  the  tribes  offered  in  like  manner  the 
same  offerings  unto  the  Lord,  the  writer  goes  on  and 
repeats  this  inventory  eleven  times,  through  eighty 
verses.  It  is  incredible  that  a  later  writer,  giving  such 
an  account,  should  proceed  in  this  manner.  It  appears 
altogether  like  an  entry  made  by  the  scribe  to  see  that 
the  tribes  did  what  was  required  of  them,  though  no 
mention  of  such  requisition  is  made  in  the  record.  I 
have  had  the  curiosity  to  turn  again  to  Josephus  to  see 
how,  in  his  summary  of  the  law,  he  manages  this  matter, 
and  will  quote  the  passage  which  relates  to  these  of- 
ferings, that  the  reader  may  see  the  difference  between 
the  style  of  a  later  writer  and  that  of  the  old  journal- 
ists. Josephus  says  :  "  Every  head  of  a  tribe  brought 
a  bov/1,  a  charger,  and  a  spoon  of  ten  daricks  full  of 
incense.  Now  the  charger  and  bowl  were  of  silver,  and 
together  they  weighed  two  hundred  shekels,  but  the 
bowl  cost  no  more  than  seventy  shekels  ;  and  these 
were  full  of  fine  flour  mingled  with  oil,  such  as  they 
used  on  the  altar  about  the  sacrifices.  They  brought 
also  a  young  bullock  and  a  ram,  with  a  lamb  a  year 
old,  for  a  whole  burnt-offering ;  as  also  a  goat,  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins.  Every  one  of  the  heads  of  the 
tribes  brought  also  other  sacrifices,  called  peace-offer- 
ings ;  for  every  day,  two  bulls  and  five  rams,  with  lambs 
of  a  year  old  and  kids  of  the  goats.  These  heads  of 
the  tribes  were  twelve  days  in  sacrificing,  one  sacrific- 
ing every  day."  The  contrast  between  these  two  ac- 
counts clearly  shows  us  how  an  historian  living  long 
after  the  events,  as  in  the  time  of  Ezra,  would  have 
managed  such  a  subject. 


214  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

(6)  Another  illustration  of  this  head  of  my  argument 
is  found  in  the  wearisomely  minute  diagnostics  of  the 
leprosy  in  men,  houses,  and  garments  (Leviticus  xiii., 
xiv.).  Two  long  chapters,  of  nearly  sixty  verses  each, 
are  filled  with  the  repulsive  details  of  the  indications 
and  purification  of  this  most  loathsome  of  all  diseases. 
I  must  be  excused  from  quoting  any  of  it.  No  more 
modern  historian  would  thus  burden  his  pages ;  but 
then  and  there  it  was  necessary,  for  definite  rules  must 
be  given  for  the  guidance  of  the  priests.  Indeed,  the 
whole  of  this  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  which  refers  to 
ritual  impurities  indicates  clearly  enough  that  it  had  its 
birth  in  the  camp,  among  a  people  just  emerging  from 
barbarism. 

(7)  Perhaps  the  most  marked  of  all  these  laboriously 
minute  descriptions  and  repetitions  is  to  be  found  in 
the  last  half  of  Exodus,  where  the  tabernacle  and  its 
furniture  and  the  priests'  garments  are  described  in  the 
most  accurate  manner,  even  to  the  tassels  and  pins 
and  taches  (Exodus  xxv. -xxx.).  Moses  brings  this 
minute  description  of  the  whole  sacerdotal  dress  and 
tabernacle  construction  and  incense  manufacture  with 
him  from  the  Mount.  It  is  precisely  like  the  specifi- 
cations in  a  modern  contract  for  building  a  dwelling- 
house  or  making  a  garment  or  a  confection,  but  more 
minute,  if  possible.  The  work  is  given  out  by  Moses; 
and,  as  the  workmen  bring  back  to  him  the  portion 
which  they  undertook  to  make,  it  is  entered  again  with 
the  same  minute  description  in  the  Pentateuch  (Exodus 
xxxvi. -xxxix.).  So  that  we  have  a  duplicate  descrip- 
tion of  all  these  articles,  so  wearisomely  minute  that  we 


EVIDENCE    FROM    MINUTENESS   OF    DETAILS.        215 

can  hardly  have  patience  to  read  it  once.  Admit  that 
tliis  was  written  on  the  spot,  and  all  this  minuteness 
and  duplication  is  accounted  for  :  deny  this,  and  there 
is  no  possible  reason  why  such  a  minute  detail  of  these 
articles  should  be  repeated,  even  if  we  can  discover 
why  they  should  be  once  described.  It  seems  incredi- 
ble that  any  later  writer  could  have  done  it.  Of  the 
"pattern  given  in  the  Mount,"  which  is  so  minutely 
described,  before  the  work  was  done,  in  the  Pentateuch, 
Josephus  only  says  (chap,  v.,  8),  "  He  [God]  had  sug- 
gested to  him  [Moses]  that  he  would  have  a  tabernacle 
built  for  him,  and  that  the  tabernacle  should  be  of 
such  measure  and  construction  as  he  had  showed 
him."  Josephus  then  gives  a  careful  description  of 
the  work.     There  is  no  repetition  of  particulars. 

To  feel  the  full  force  of  this  argument,  it  is  necessary 
that  one  should  read  carefully  the  account  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch, and  at  one  sitting,  if  possible. 

I  should  be  glad  to  go  into  a  consideration  of  the 
specific  directions  given  touching  many  of  the  condi- 
tions of  camp  life,  and  especially  those  health  regula- 
tions which  it  was  necessary  for  a  people  thus  sojourning 
to  observe,  and  v/hich  no  modern  historian  could  dwell 
upon  so  long  and  minutely  as  they  are  dwelt  upon  in 
the  Pentateuch ;  but  the  nature  of  the  subjects,  as  well 
as  the  great  length  of  my  Study,  requires  that  I  should 
pass  them  over.  Their  bearing  upon  the  point  which  I 
am  considering  is  clear  and  strong ;  and,  in  connection 
with  some  of  the  circumstances  which  I  have  already 
referred  to,  they  furnish  evidence,  almost  conclusive  in 
itself,  of  the  antiquity  of  the  work  in  which  they  are 
contained. 


2l6  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

SECTION    V.     EVIDENCE    FROM    CHASMS    IN    THE    HISTORY. 

The  chasjns  in  the  history  are  another  indication 
of  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch,  (i)  The  space  of 
nearly  four  hundred  years,  according  to  the  reckoning 
which  commends  itself  to  many  scholars,  from  the 
descent  of  Jacob  and  his  family  into  Egypt  to  the  de- 
parture of  the  people,  is  passed  over  in  almost  entire 
silence ;  and  so  also  are  the  youth  and  manhood  of 
Moses,  in  which  Josephus  and  the  rabbins  revel  and 
glory.  Only  those  incidents  are  mentioned  which  are 
necessary  to  an  introduction  to  the  great  work  of  deliv- 
erance from  Egyptian  bondage.  We  can  hardly  sup- 
pose that  a  writer  of  the  time  of  Ezra  would  have  left 
such  gaps  in  his  history.  The  particular  and  wonderful 
events  in  the  life  of  Moses  before  his  flight  to  Midian, 
which  tradition  had  handed  down,  and  which  attracted 
the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Josephus,  could  hardly  have 
escaped  the  notice  of  earlier  writers.  They  would  have 
filled  up  these  chasms  with  such  traditions  as  had  come 
down  to  them  respecting  the  marvellous  life  of  their 
great  law-giver.  That  such  would  have  been  their 
course  can  hardly  be  doubted  by  any  one  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  Jewish  writers,  and  knows  how  prone 
they  were  to  introduce  traditionary  tales  where  histor- 
ical facts  failed  them. 

Nor  is  the  chasm  referred  to,  all.  Thirty-seven 
years,  covering  a  large  portion  of  the  period  of  the 
wandering  in  the  wilderness,  is  left  an  entire  blank,  and 
we  know  almost  nothing  of  what  transpired,  except  the 
stations  which  from  time  to  time  the  people  occupied. 
A  more  attractive  field  for  the  growth  of  traditions 
could  not   be   imafrined  :  and   not   to   enter   it   would 


KVIDENCE  FROM  EGYPTIAN  CUSTOMS.      217 

require  more  regard  for  historical  truth,  or  a  nicer 
discrimination  between  what  is  true  and  what  is  false, 
than  later  writers  of  that  nation  have  shown  in  their 
works,  or  than  some  modern  critics  give  them  credit 
for.  I  cannot  introduce  illustrations  to  show  the  cor- 
rectness of  these  remarks.  Those  readers  who  are 
familiar  with  Jewish  literature  do  not  need  them,  and 
those  who  are  not  will  find  enough  of  them  in  the 
writings  of  Philo,  Josephus,  the  Talmudists,  and  the 
rest.  Admit  that  the  principal  parts  of  the  last  four 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  are  the  work  of  a  writer,  a 
scribe  or  scribes,  contemporary  with  the  events  which 
are  recorded  in  them,  and  these  chasms  are  easily 
accounted  for :  assume  any  later  period  for  their  com- 
position, and  they  present  insurmountable  obstacles. 

SECTION   VI.    EVIDENCE    FROM    EGYPTIAN    CUSTOMS. 

I  should  be  glad  to  go  at  length  into  a  consideration 
of  the  minute  and  circumstantial  references  which  we 
find  in  the  Pentateuch  to  Egyptian  customs.  But  I 
must  confine  myself  to  one,  as  an  illustration  of  many, 
which  impresses  deeply  upon  the  mind  the  opinion  that 
an  eye-witness  must  have  recorded  them.  A  resident 
in  Egypt,  and  none  other,  could  thus  have  colored  the 
history  with  such  delicate  touches  denoting  his  age  and 
residence.  In  the  fifth  chapter  of  Exodus,  the  histo- 
rian gives  an  account  of  the  additional  labor  which  was 
put  upon  the  Hebrews  when  they  complained  of  their 
tasks,  and  asked  leave  to  go  into  the  country  for  three 
days  to  worship.  "  I  will  not  gi\'e  you  straw,"  said 
Pharaoh.  "  Go  ye,  get  you  straw  where  ye  can  find  it. 
...  So  the  people  were  scattered  abroad  throughout  all 


2l8  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

the  laud  of  Egypt  to  gather  stubble  instead  of  straw^ 
The  "  straw "  was  that  which  had  been  broken  upon 
the  threshing-floor  ;  the  "stubble  "  was  what  had  been 
left  standing  in  the  field  after  reaping.  If  we  turn  now 
to  Wilkinson's  Mariners  arid  Customs  of  the  Ancient 
Egyptians  (Vol.  VI,,  page  86),  we  shall  find  an  engrav- 
ing, taken  from  the  ancient  tombs,  in  which  is  rep- 
resented the  gathering  of  wheat.  The  reapers  are 
represented  as  cutting  off  only  the  heads  of  the  grain, 
which  they  put  in  baskets,  and  leaving  the  "stubble" 
nearly  as  high  as  their  shoulders  behind  them.  This 
was  the  "  stubble  "  which  the  Hebrews  went  out  to 
gather,  not  the  short  stubble  which  was  left  when  the 
straw  was  cut  near  the  ground.  The  overtasked  He- 
brews had  not  the  privilege  of  going  to  the  threshing- 
floors  and  getting  their  "straw"  :  they  were  compelled 
to  gather  this  high  "  stubble "  in  the  field.  In  the 
same  work,  we  find  illustrations  of  brick-making,  and 
bricks  made  with  straw  are  found  in  the  ruins  of  the 
ancient  cities. 

Such  minute  knowledge  of  the  manners  of  Egypt 
as  the  writer  of  the  Pentateuch  everywhere  shows,  and 
which  it  would  cover  pages  to  describe,  confirms  the 
opinion  of  its  Mosaic  origin.  It  is  hardly  conceivable 
that  a  later  writer  could  have  so  fully  informed  himself 
of  ancient  customs  as  to  have  spoken  of  them  so  inci- 
dentally and  yet  so  accurately  and  minutely. 

SECTION    VII.       EVIDENCE    FROM     EGYPTIAN    WORDS    AND 
RITES. 

Another  evidence  of  the  early  origin  of  the  Penta- 
teuch is  found  in  the  use  of  Egyptian  words,  the  adop- 


EVIDENCE    FROM    EGYPTIAN    WORDS   AND   RITES.    219 

tion  of  Egyptian  customs  in  their  worship,  both  in 
utensils,  altars,  and  robes,  and  also  in  the  establishment 
of  a  priesthood  and  ritual.  In  the  first  sixteen  chapters 
of  Exodus,  in  which  the  bondage  and  escape  of  the 
people  are  described,  no  less  than  forty-eight  words, 
exclusive  of  proper  names,  of  Egyptian  origin,  are  used, 
if  such  scholars  as  Gesenius  and  Bunsen  can  be  relied 
upon,  to  say  nothing  of  Seyffarth  and  Harkavy  and 
Wilkinson.  Egypt  must  have  been  the  native  land  of 
the  author.  lie  is  familiar  with  the  manners  and 
customs  of  the  people.  The  whole  account  is  evidence 
of  such  an  author.  The  Urim  and  Thummim  were 
Egyptian  symbols  of  Truth  and  Justice,  and  were  worn 
by  the  judge  or  priest  in  the  breastplate  which  was 
over  his  priestly  dress,  as  is  shown  in  Wilkinson's 
Aticietit  Egyptians.  The  dress  of  the  priests  is  not 
unlike  that  of  the  Egyptian  priests  —  linen  —  as  repre- 
sented in  the  same  work.  Their  bathing  and  shaving 
the  whole  body  were  the  same  also.  Even  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  and  the  cherubim  over  it  are  copied  from 
those  used  in  Egypt,  as  may  be  seen  in  Wilkinson,  Vol. 
v.,  page  276.  As  far  as  modern  studies  in  Egyptian 
archaeology  have  gone,  they  confirm  the  accuracy  of 
the  description  of  the  manners,  laws,  and  language  of 
that  ancient  people  made  by  the  writer  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  remand  its  composition  to  an  early  age  and 
a  native  of  the  country. 

It  has  been  objected  to  the  antiquity  and  unity  of 
the  Pentateuch  that  such  a  complicated  ritual  and 
comprehensive  body  of  laws  could  not  have  sprung  into 
existence  at  once ;  that  generations,  centuries,  were 
necessary  to  evolve  and  mature  them.     It  is  forgotten 


220  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

by  those  who  present  this  objection  that  the  Egyptians 
were  an  old  nation  when  Jacob's  family  went  among 
them.  They  had  the  most  attractive  and  elaborate 
ritual  the  world  knew, —  priests,  temples,  altars,  sac- 
rifices, were  almost  everywhere.  Their  laws  were  the 
mature  wisdom  of  ages.  How  easy  was  it,  compara- 
tively speaking,  for  the  law-giver  of  Israel  to  arrange, 
with  the  aid  of  such  a  ritual  and  such  laws,  the  ritual 
and  laws  which  we  find  in  the  Pentateuch,  so  similar  to 
those  of  Egypt  as  to  reveal  their  relationship,  and  so 
dissimilar  as  to  prevent  confounding  them,  and  estab- 
lishing the  independence  of  their  author  !  No  careful 
student  of  the  Hebrew  code  and  ritual  can  fail  to  see 
the  influence  of  an  Egyptian  education  and  residence 
upon  the  law-giver;  so  that  the  objection  is  itself 
transformed  into  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  antiquity 
of  the  Pentateuch  and  even  of  its  Mosaic  origin.  He 
would  naturally,  trained  as  he  had  been,  construct  a 
full  code  and  ritual  for  the  recently  delivered  people. 
Nor  is  it  any  valid  evidence,  scarcely  a  presumption, 
that  he  did  not  do  it,  because  they  were  but  imperfectly 
administered,  and  in  some  respects  apparently  persist- 
ently violated  for  centuries.  The  code  and  the  ritual 
sprang  fully  formed,  mature,  from  the  brain  of  Moses, 
like  Minerva  from  the  brain  of  Jupiter.  The  people 
were  not  able  to  understand  or  appreciate  but  a  small 
part  of  them  at  first,  and  some  portions  of  them  were 
very  probably  found  impracticable  or  so  burdensome  as 
to  compel  neglect.  The  code  and  the  ritual  were  ideal, 
and  could  not  in  every  particular  be  made  real.  The 
servile,  emancipated  race  developed  slowly  up  to  the 
standard  of  their  law  whose  requirements  were  ever 


NO    EVIDENCE   OF    ENACTMENTS   AFTER    MOSES.      22  1 

before  them.  Their  barbarism  gradually  wore  off,  and 
the  knowledge  of  the  one  only  God  increased,  and 
diminished  their  belief  in  other  gods  and  their  relisli 
of  idolatrous  rites.  The  people  grew  up  to  the  law,  as 
Christians  are  growing  up  to  Christianity.  The  gospel 
reads  to-day  as  it  did  eighteen  centuries  ago,  but  how 
differently  it  is  understood  and  practised  !  The  Mosaic 
code  and  ritual  read  the  same  through  all  the  tumultu- 
ous period  of  the  Judges  and  the  revolution  under 
Samuel,  and  during  the  monarchy ;  but  how  differently 
were  they  regarded  as  the  people  sloughed  olT  their 
barbarisms  and  improved  in  knowledge  ! 

SECTION   VIII.       NO    EVIDENCE   OF    ENACTMENTS    AFTER 
THE   TIME   OF    MOSES. 

One  point  further,  and  I  will  close.  The  Pentateuch 
concludes  its  history  with  the  death  of  Moses,  and 
professes  to  contain  only  those  laws  and  rites  which 
were  prescribed  by  him.  There  is  not  a  particle  of 
reliable  evidence,  either  external  or  internal,  that  a  single 
law  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch  was  the  work  of  the  period 
subsequent  to  the  time  of  Moses.  I  affirm  this  with  the 
emphasis  of  assurance.  The  possession  of  the  prom- 
ised land  is  always  spoken  of  as  future.  New  laws  are 
given,  new  regulations  are  established  on  the  banks  of 
the  Jordan,  just  before  the  people  passed  over  to  take 
possession  of  their  country,  such  as  their  changed  con- 
dition would  require.  No  laws  were  made  afterwards 
of  which  we  have  any  record  which  were  fundamental. 
All  appeals  are  made  to  the  law  of  Moses. 

So  much  for  the  antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch.  Who 
was  its  writer  1     To  answer  this  question  is  no  purpose 


22  2  A   STUDY   OF   THE    PENTATEUCH. 

of  this  Study.  Probably  Moses  was  the  principal 
author,  I  am  aware  that  one  objection  which  has 
weight  in  some  minds  is  made  to  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch  :  it  is  that  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  third 
person  in  the  historical  portions.  This  is  true ;  and 
admitting  that  it  has  weight  so  far  as  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship is  concerned,  it  has  no  weight  whatever  against  my 
position ;  for  I  am  not  proving  that  Moses  was  the 
writer  of  the  Pentateuch,  but  that  it  was  chiefly  at  least 
composed  during  his  life.  Against  this  position,  the 
objection  has  no  force  whatever.  But  I  am  by  no 
means  willing  to  give  it  the  weight  which  is  claimed 
for  it  as  conclusive  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  under 
any  circumstances.  Xenophon  is  admitted  on  all  hands 
to  have  written  the  Anabasis,  and  yet  he  never  speaks 
of  himself  in  the  first  person,  though  he  is  the  principal 
character  in  the  work.  Who  can  dogmatically  assert 
that  Moses  did  not  do  the  same  thing?  Besides,  who 
can  say  that  Moses  did  not  adopt  the  usual  practice  of 
early  times,  as  indicated  both  in  history  and  in  monu- 
ments, of  employing  a  scribe,  or  scribes,  who  took  note 
of  passing  events,  as  well  as  writing  out  the  laws,  who 
would  naturally  speak  of  Moses  in  the  third  person  ? 

The  whole  book  has  the  style  and  coloring,  the  con- 
tents and  structure,  of  a  writing  of  the  Mosaic  age.  A 
few  passages  of  later  date  can  easily  be  accounted  for 
?is  scholia  —  explanatory  clauses  —  which  have  been  in- 
troduced into  the  text  by  later  copyists  and  readers. 
Some  apparent  or  real  contradictions  can  be  easily  dis- 
posed of  by  the  same  method,  or  as  failures  in  the 
memory  of  the  original  writer.  As  well  might  one 
challenge  the  antiquity  of  the  pyramid  because  he  had 


RESULTS.  223 

found  a  modern  stone  imbedded  in  one  of  its  courses. 
Whether  its  condition  could  be  accounted  for  or  not,  no 
antiquarian  would  think  of  pronouncing  the  monument 
of  Cheops  a  work  of  the  Ptolemies,  standing  in  its 
hoary  presence,  with  the  voice  of  history  sounding  in 
his  ears.  As  no  astronomer  would  be  accounted  sane 
who  should  dispute  that  the  sun  is  the  source  of  light 
because  a  few  dark  spots  are  found  on  its  surface,  so  no 
scholar  who  has  surveyed  all  sides  of  this  subject  in  the 
full  light  of  modern  discoveries  can  reasonably  deny 
to  the  Mosaic  age  the  production  of  the  Pentateuch  on 
account  of  alleged  modern  interpolations,  imperfect 
genealogies,  or  contradictory  dates  and  names  which 
are  found  in  it. 

SECTION    IX.      RESULTS. 

It  results  from  the  foregoing  investigation  :  — 

I.  That  that  portion  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  called 
the  Pentateuch,  or  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  can  be 
traced  by  a  common  name —  "  The  Book  of  the  Law," 
"The  Law  given  by  Moses,"  "The  Law,"  and  other 
titles — from  the  time  of  Christ  back  through  all  the 
extant  literature  of  the  nation  —  prose  and  poetry, 
prophecy  and  proverb,  history  and  psalm  —  till  the  time 
of  David,  and  in  all  fragments  of  its  literature  of  an 
earlier  date;  — 

n.  That  all  the  passages  quoted  from  the  book  with 
tiiese  titles  are  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  often  its 
peculiar  phraseology  is  preserved  in  the  quotation, 
showing  that  the  book  is  proved  to  be  the  same  by  its 
contents  as  well  as  by  its  title  ;  — 

in.  That  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  in  the  his- 
torical books  that  these  laws  were  enacted  or  revised 


224  A   STUDY   OF    THE    PENTATEUCH. 

in  any  later  time  than  that  of  the  Mosaic  age ;  all  Jew- 
ish opinions  to  this  effect  being  of  a  much  later  date, 
and  based  upon  no  historical  evidence  whatever;  — 

IV.  That  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch,  its  pecu- 
liar phrases  and  "  archaic  words,"  shows  that  it  must 
have  been  written  some  centuries  before  any  other  of 
the  extant  Hebrew  writings,  thus  remitting  its  composi- 
tion to  several  generations  before  the  time  of  David,  as 
the  language  of  the  earliest  Psalms,  which  are  free  from 
them,  witnesses;  — 

V.  That  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  journal- 
like arrangement  of  its  events  and  laws,  the  constant 
assumption  or  implication  that  it  was  written  in  a  camp, 
and  many  of  its  laws  adapted  only  to  camp  life,  the 
amendments  of  laws  when  on  the  borders  of  the  prom- 
ised land  to  fit  them  to  the  changed  condition  and 
wants  of  the  people,  the  inventories  of  gifts,  and  the 
record  of  specifications  for  wood-work,  and  curtains, 
and  garments,  and  vessels  for  sacred  use,  the  record  of 
incidents  which  caused  new  laws  to  be  enacted  or  old 
laws  to  be  amended,  the  incidental  and  most  obviously 
undesigned  coincidences  of  events  which  are  separated 
by  many  chapters  and  much  time,  confirm  the  previous 
historic  and  linguistic  evidence  of  the  early  origin  of 
the  Pentateuch,  and  place  its  composition  in  the  Mosaic 
age,  and  prove  its  direct  or  indirect  Mosaic  author- 
ship ;  — 

VI.  That  the  tumultuous  anarchical  times  before  the 
accession  of  David  to  the  throne  render  it  very  proba- 
ble that  sections  of  the  law  may  have  been  misplaced, 
possibly  lost ;  that  some  of  the  historical  sections  may 
have  been  disarranged  ;  and  that  as  time  passed   on 


RESULTS.  225 

old  names  were  modernized,  obscure  incidents  ex- 
plained, and  modern  words  and  phrases  sometimes 
substituted  for  the  obsolete  originals ;  but  none  of 
these  modern  explanations  and  interpolations  and  sup- 
posed corrections  in  the  least  degree  affecting  the 
force  of  the  argument  derived  from  the  above-men- 
tioned considerations  of  the  age  and  at  least  the  prin- 
cipal authorship  of  the  work;  — 

VII.  That,  notwithstanding  the  difficulties  attending 
the  reference  of  this  work  to  so  early  an  age  and 
authorship,  they  vanish  into  comparative  unimportance 
when  compared  with  those  which  attend  any  other 
theory  of  its  composition,  especially  that  which  refers 
it  to  the  time  of  Ezra,  or  accounts  for  it  by  miscella- 
neous aggregations  made  during  the  ten  centuries 
which  transpired  between  Moses  and  Nehemiah;  — 

VIII.  And,  finally,  that  the  only  reasonable,  and 
indeed  the  necessary,  inference  to  be  drawn  from  these 
facts — the  historical  references  to  this  book  by  the 
same  names  to  the  earliest  times  ;  the  quotations  made 
from  it  in  later  writings  corresponding  in  minute  par- 
ticulars to  passages  found  in  it ;  the  archaisms  with 
which  it  abounds ;  the  journal  and  camp-like  arrange- 
ment and  tone  of  its  laws;  the  undesigned  coinci- 
dences, indicating  a  writer  on  the  spot ;  the  occasional 
explanation  of  antique  words,  names,  and  customs ; 
and  the  insuperable  difficulties  of  fixing  upon  any 
other  period  for  its  composition  —  is  that  the  Penta- 
teuch belongs  to  the  Mosaic  age,  and  fixes  the  author- 
ship of  the  book  upon  Moses  and  his  contemporaries 
or  immediate  successors. 


CONCLUSION. 

DIFFICULTIES   OF   ANY   THEORY   OF   UNBELIEF. 

I  KNOW  the  objections  raised,  the  suspicion  surmised, 
the  prejudices  appealed  to  ;  but  I  also  know  that 
there  are  difficulties  in  unbelief  as  well  as  in  belief.  It 
is  often  supposed  that  there  are  no  difficulties  trailing 
after  denial ;  that  some  belief  is  not  professed  or  im- 
plied when  another  is  rejected.  But  he  who  denies  the 
antiquity  of  the  Pentateuch  will  be  required  by  that 
denial  to  believe  some  things  which  will  stagger  reason 
and  forbid  faith.  That  very  denial  will  compel  him  to 
adopt  a  positive  opinion  respecting  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch,  which  will  draw  after  it  difficulties  more  in- 
solvable  and  facts  more  incredible  than  the  plagues  of 
Egypt  or  the  refluent  waves  of  the  Red  Sea.  For  he 
must  believe  that  an  unbroken  chain  of  writers  from 
the  days  of  Josephus  to  the  time  of  David,  including 
philosophers,  historians,  poets,  prophets,  have  quoted 
different  books  under  the  same  title,  and  containing 
the  same  laws,  expressed  in  the  same  words ;  that,  be- 
tween the  translation  of  the  Septuagint,  in  the  golden 
reign  of  Philadelphus,  and  the  time  of  the  prophet 
Malachi,  about  a  century,  this  "Book  of  the  Law  of 
Moses "  was  mostly  written  and  palmed  off  upon  the 
Jewish  scribes  as  of  Mosaic  origin,  and  gravely  trans- 
lated by  them  into  Greek  at  his  command ;  or  that,  be- 
tween the  time  of  Malachi  and  the  time  of  Ezra,  about 


CONCLUSION,  227 

half  a  century  more,  some  one  or  more  of  the  returned 
exiles  constructed  a  work  which  received  the  approba- 
tion of  both  prophets  and  rulers,  people  and  priests,  as 
the  "Book  of  Moses"  by  whose  laws  their  fathers  had 
been  guided  ;  or  that  Ezra  himself  codified  and  pub- 
lished the  national  laws  under  the  title  of  the  "  Laws 
of  Moses,"  or  invented  nearly  all  of  them,  and  suc- 
ceeded in  making  the  people  receive  them  as  such, 
either  by  gross  fraud  or  because  they  were  really  of 
Mosaic  origin,  and  yet  his  history  makes  no  mention  of 
such  a  wonderful  work  in  narrating  the  invaluable  ser- 
vices rendered  to  the  people  by  this  efficient  ruler ;  or 
that,  a  century  before,  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan  imposed 
a  code  under  the  name  of  "  The  Book  of  the  Law  of 
the  Loi'd  by  Moses"  upon  King  Josiah  and  all  the  na- 
tion, and  that  Hezekiah  had  no  such  "  Book  of  the 
Law  of  Moses"  as  the  historian  affirms,  and  that  Ama- 
ziah  did  not  quote  from  it  when  he  said,  as  it  "  is  writ- 
ten in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,"  and  that  Jehos- 
haphat  did  not  send  out  the  scribes  to  teach  that  book 
when  they  "took  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  the  Lord 
with  them,"  and  that  Jehoash  had  some  other  book 
under  the  name  of  "  the  Law  "  given  him  when  he  was 
anointed  king,  and  that  David  did  not  refer  to  it  when 
he  charged  Solomon  to  have  regard  to  what  "  is  written 
in  the  Law  of  Moses."  He  must  believe,  moreover, 
that  different  books  and  different  codifications  of  the 
laws  of  the  people  from  time  to  time  are  thus  referred 
to,  when  not  one  lisp  in  the  whole  history  or  poetry  or 
prophecy  of  the  nation  can  be  found  to  that  effect. 
He  must  believe  that  the  nation  was  so  stupid  as  to  per- 
mit it,  and  its  historians  so  careless  as  not  to  mention 


228  A   STUDY   OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

it  either  to  the  honor  or  the  disgrace  of  any  scribe  or 
king.  He  must  believe  that  in  the  time  of  Ezra  or 
Josiah  a  writer  succeeded  in  imitating  the  ancient  style 
of  the  Mosaic  age  so  perfectly  that  all  the  scribes  and 
priests  were  deceived  into  the  belief  that  it  was  the 
work  of  Moses,  even  when  there  was  no  evidence  that 
he  ever  wrote  such  a  book,  or  that  such  a  book  had 
ever  existed  in  the  nation.  Nay,  more :  he  must  believe 
that  all  its  complicated  and  burdensome  laws  were  re- 
ceived at  once  and  adopted  as  the  code  of  the  nation, 
because  t\xey  believed  them  to  be  of  Mosaic  origin,  and 
submitted  to  the  severe  discipline  which  these  laws  im- 
posed, without  once  questioning  the  authenticity  of  the 
book  or  the  authority  of  the  law-giver.  He  must  be- 
lieve that  the  writer  not  only  invented  the  accounts 
of  the  building  of  the  tabernacle,  and  wearisomely 
repeated  them,  and  also  introduced  the  repetitious  de- 
scriptions of  the  offerings  and  the  consecration  of  the 
sacred  things,  but  he  must  believe  that  he  could  luckily 
hit  upon  or  skilfully  invent  those  numerous  undesigned 
coincidences  which  are  scattered  all  through  the  book,  so 
evidently  unobserved  by  the  writer  himself.  He  must 
believe  that  the  writer — guilty  of  one  of  the  grossest 
impositions  ever  practised  upon  a  people  —  was  never 
suspected,  much  less  accused,  of  fraud,  but  that  his 
spurious  work  was  received  and  adopted  without  a  word 
of  complaint,  suspicion,  or  hesitation  by  a  whole  nation. 
He  must  believe  that  no  "Book  of  the  Law"  was  in 
existence  during  the  reign  of  David,  and  that  all  the 
historians,  prophets,  and  poets  which  have  referred  to 
it  in  an  unbroken  series  from  his  time  down  to  the  time 
of  Nehemiah  and  Malachi,  Sirach  and  Philo,  were  mis- 


CONCLUSION.  229 

taken,  or  else  he  must  believe  that  a  gross  corruption 
of  the  old  copy  was  made,  and  ma  }e  in  so  skilful  a 
manner  that  no  one  detected  it  then,  or  can  now  tell 
with  any  certainty  the  new  portions  which  were  added 
to  the  old  book.  The  learned  men  of  Jehoshaphat, 
the  scholarly  priest  and  scribe  of  Josiah,  the  noble 
Ezra,  the  skilful  Nehemiah,  never  suspected  the  fraud, 
never  discovered  the  cheat.  Nor  did  the  prophets  Joel 
and  Hosea,  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  Haggai  and  Malachi, 
have  a  suspicion  that  "the  Law,"  "the  Laws  of 
Moses,"  "the  Law  of  the  Lord,"  on  which  they  based 
all  their  predictions,  and  to  which  they  appealed  in  con- 
firmation of  all  their  threatenings  and  promises,  was  a 
mere  collection  made  from  age  to  age  of  the  laws  of 
the  nation,  and  attributed,  by  a  pious  fraud  or  illiterate 
mistake,  to  their  great  deliverer,  Moses,  to  give  them 
sanctity  and  power  over  the  people.  Surely,  a  louder 
curse  would  have  leaped  from  the  fiery  lips  of  Isaiah 
upon  the  head  of  such  a  deceiver  than  he  ever  uttered 
against  the  hypocritical  priests  who  "trampled  the 
courts  of  the  Lord."  Yet  such  must  be  his  belief  who 
disbelieves. 

Adopting  the  canon  of  Hume,  that  of  two  miracles 
we  should  believe  that  which  is  the  less  marvellous 
and  incredible,  I  accept  the  miracle,  if  it  be  one,  of 
the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  rather  than  the 
theory  which  makes  it  either  the  growth  of  centuries 
or  the  work  of  a  modern  Jew  of  the  time  of  Ezra. 
The  difficulties  attending  the  last  theory  are  vastly 
greater  than  those  which  surround  the  first.  As  easily 
could  I  believe  that  the  basaltic  pillars  which  compose 
the  Giant's  Causeway  were  the  work  of  the  fabulous 


230  A   STUDY  OF   THE   PENTATEUCH. 

race  whose  name  they  bear,  and  not  the  production  of 
the  earth's  central  fires.  I  believe,  then,  that  the  Pen- 
tateuch is  a  work  of  the  Mosaic  age,  and  largely  the 
work  of  Moses  himself ;  that  it  has  come  down  to  us 
with  few,  very  few,  dislocations,  interpolations,  and 
corruptions;  and  that  it  will  be  handed  down  to  com- 
ing ages  as  an  admired  monument  of  the  wisdom, 
learning,  and  arts  of  that  remote  age, —  as  a  monu- 
ment of  an  early  revelation  of  the  divine  will,  to  re- 
store and  elevate  the  race.  I  believe  that  the  more 
thorough  the  investigations  are  which  are  directed  to 
the  examination  of  this  book,  the  more  profound  and 
searching  the  scholarship  which  is  devoted  to  the  in- 
quiry of  its  age  and  authorship,  the  more  successful 
the  endeavors  of  the  explorers  of  the  ancient  monu- 
ments on  the  Nile  and  the  Tigris  in  exhuming  sculpt- 
ured tablets  and  opening  tombs  whose  walls  are  pict- 
ured history,  the  more  brilliant  the  success  of  the 
Rawlinsons,  the  Layards,  and  the  Hinckses,  the  Smiths 
and  the  Sayces,  in  deciphering  the  cuneiform  inscrip- 
tions on  the  walls  of  the  palaces  of  the  successors  of 
Ninus,  and  of  the  Wilkinsons  and  the  Lepsiuses  and 
the  Mariettes  in  interpreting  the  painted  symbols  and 
hieroglyphic  histories  in  the  tombs  of  the  Pharaohs 
contemporary  with  Abraham  and  Joseph  and  Moses, 
the  more  certainty  will  be  given  to  the  conclusions 
which  I  have  reached,  or,  at  least,  to  Vv'hich  I  have 
pointed  the  way :  that  the  Pentateuch  is  substan- 
tially OF  THE   Mosaic  age,  and   largely,  either 

DIRECTLY  OR   INDIRECTLY,   OF  MoSAIC  AUTHORSHIP, 


ANALYTICAL  INDEX. 


Pagb 
INTRODUCTORY  ON  KUENEN'S  "RELIGION  OF  ISRAEL." 

Style  of  the  Work,  and  Test  of  the  Truth  of  Later 

Writers, 7-1° 

Illustrations  of  Perversions  of  History  by  Priests  and 

Prophets, "-13 

Theory  of  Human  Progress  the  Test  of  All  History,   .  14-16 
Point  of   Departure   in   the  Inquiry  of  the  Historic 

Truth,  and  Dr.  Kuenen's  Method  of  Argument,   .  16-24 

Reform  under  Hezekiah  and  Josiah, 24-27 

Hilkiah's  "  Book  of  the  Law," 27-32 

The  Law  the  Work  of  Ezekiel  and  Ezra  (Leviticus 

xviii.,  xxvi.), 33~36 

Objection  that   "No  Mention  is  made  of  any  such 
Work  as  the   Pentateuch  in  any  Work  written 

before  the  Captivity"  examined 37-5^ 

Testimony  of  the  Book  of  the  Kings, 37-39 

«         "          "          "         Chronicles 39-42 

"         "  "  "         Joshua,  Judges,  Samuel,  42-47 

"         «          "          "         Ezra,  Nehemiah,    .     .  47-57 

Conclusion 57 

Appendix  A:   "The  Bible  for   Learners."     Some  of 

its  Theories  noticed, —  Sinai,  Samson,  Korah,  .     .  59-65 
Appendix  B :    Some  of  Dr.  Kuenen's  Theories  exam- 

amined, —  Priests,  Levites,  etc.,  .               ...  66-69 

No  Prophetic  Writing  till  Eighth  Century,     .  70 

Not  One  Psalm  from  David, 70 

Different   Documents  in  Exodus  and   Num- 
bers      ,         ...         .    .  71 


232  ANALYTICAL   INDEX. 

PAGB 

A  STUDY  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH. 

Introduction, 7S-8i 

External  Evidences 82 

I.  Christ  to  Malachi. 

1st  Esdras 83 

1st  Maccabees, 84 

Ecclesiasticus, 84 

Septuagint  Version, 84 

Samaritan  Pentateuch, 84 

II.  Malachi  to  Captivity. 

Malachi, 85 

Haggai 85 

Zechariah, 85 

Nehemiah, 85-S6 

Ezra, 86-87 

III.  Captivity  to  David. 

(i)  Historical  Books,  remarks  on,  .     .    .    87-go 

Books  of  the  Kings, 90-100 

Josiah, 90-93 

Hezekiah, 93~94 

Amaziah, 94 

Jehoash, 94 

David, 95 

Solomon, 95-100 

Books  of  Chronicles, 100-104 

(2)  Poetical  Books, 104-132 

I.   The  Prophets. 

Daniel, 105 

Habbakuk, 105 

Zephaniah, 105 

Ezekiel, 105-107 

Jeremiah, 107-112 

Isaiah, 11 2-1 15 

Micah, 115 

Hosea, 11 5-1 21 

Amos 121-126 

Joel,  ,,,,.,,,,,     126-127 


ANALYTICAL    INDEX.  233 

PAGE 

2.   Poems. 

Ecclesiastes 127 

Solomon's  Song, 127 

Proverbs, 128 

Psalms, 128-132 

Value  of  this  Evidence, 132-134 

IV.  David  to  Moses, 134-156 

1st  Samuel 134-141 

Judges,    141-142 

Joshua,    142-146 

Observations  on  External  Evidence, 146-151 

Conclusion, 152-156 

Internal  Evidence. 

General  Observations  as  to  what  would  be  the 
Character  of  the  Books,  supposing  them 

to  have  been  written  at  the  Time  claimed,  157-159 

I.  Antiquity  of  Style, 159-176 

II.  Contents  and  Structure.  Removal  of 
Unexpected  Difficulties  in  the  Laws, 
and  Comparison  of  Numb.  Lev.  and 

Deut., 177-198 

III.  Undesigned  Coincidences, 19S-208 

IV.  Minuteness  of  Details, 208-215 

V.  Chasms  in  the  History 216-217 

VI.  References  to  Egyptian  Customs,  .     .    .  217-218 

VII.  Adoption  of  Egyptian  Words  and  Rites,  218-221 

VIII.  No  Evidences  of  Later  Enactments,  .     .  221-223 

IX.  Results, 223-225 

X.  Conclusion. —  Difficulties  of  Unbelief,    .  226-230 


T 


